Ian Andrew's "Caddy Shack"

The Blog is Back

2009-04-03T09:37:00.003-04:00

The blog is back - but not here. Go to Weirgolfdesign.com and you will find my new blog at that location.

The Best of Caddy Shack

2008-08-16T09:45:00.020-04:00

This blog has come to an end. I took about two years to explore golf course architecture and put all my ideas and the ideas of other under the microscope. What emerged through this experience was a lot of design clarity for me. If you’re daring enough to read from start to finish you will likely see the transition.

The Best of Caddy Shack

1. The 25 Greatest Architects in History
2. The History of Golf Course Architecture
3. A Study of 18 of the Greatest Holes in Golf
4. The 10 Course Every Architect Must Study to Understand Golf Architecture
5. Defending Against Technology - without Length
6. A Complete Look at Bunkers from Philosophy to Art
7. The Joy of the Short Par Four - with a breakdown of famous Holes
8. The Short Par Three - Everybody's favourite hole
9. The Importance of the Long Par Three - with examples
10. Short Par Fives - Balancing opportunity with calamity

Other Interesting Series

1. The Role of a Greens Committee
2. How Green is Golf - review and discussion of John Barton Article
3. The Future of Canadian Golf Course Architecture - Discussion of the Enviornment, Water Useage and Economics
4. Growing the Game
5. 10 Things I Don't Like in Golf Architecture

25 Short Pieces on Golf Architecture

1. Compression and Release
2. Do Undulating Tees Make Sense?
3. Building a "Good" Low Cost Golf Course
4. Restoration - shades of grey
5. Bunker Lips that Won't Erode
6. Bunkers Inside the Fairway Lines
7. Playing Freedoms are the Key
8. The Writings that Shaped Me
9. Redans, Biarritz and other clever holes
10. Why flanking bunkers should make a comback
11. The Value of Sweeping Fairway Contours
12. Where Maintenance Meets Architecture
13. The Biarritz Green - a history
14. The Insurmountable Hole
15. Dealing with a Flat Site
16. The Redan - a history
17. Carry Angles
18. Blindness - charm or failing?
19. The Rise of Inoffensive Architecture
20. My Eclectic Top 18 Holes
21. The Use and Value of Central Bunker
22. Target Bunkers are .... Useless
23. Breather Holes are Good
24. Are fast Greens Good or Bad for Golf
25. The Best Piece I Ever Wrote

My Article from Ontario Golf

2008-07-30T16:28:00.004-04:00

Rubenstein on St. George's and the Canadian Open

2008-06-30T22:51:00.005-04:00

Lorne Rubenstein has an article about the announcement of St. George’s as the 2010 host of the Canadian Open titled - St. George's short on yardage, but long on Quality.

He talks a lot about the set up and the speculation on which hole will be shortened. I add my two cents worth indicating it will be the 4th. I made a three there in my infamous round where I was one over through 13 (from the very back tees) and wound up shooting 90!

I’m quoted in the article including:

"The one thing I can say for sure is they will all say this is the best course they played all year outside the majors and perhaps Riviera [in Los Angeles],"

I really think the players will rave about the course - but unless they can rotate through great old courses like Hamilton and St. George's year after year (and avoid Glen Abbey or Angus Glen) they will never get another decent field.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080628.RUBE28/TPStory/?query=lorne+rubenstein

The reference he makes to the old 4th is found here:

http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/06/18-holes-day-8-4th-at-st-georges-nle.html

It includes a picture of what the old hole looked like.

Salts and Saskatoon

2008-06-16T08:21:00.009-04:00

Testing for conductivity

The person in the photo is a fellow named Les Henry. Les wrote a publication called The Nature and Management of Salt-Affected Land in Saskatchewan. Les is from the Soil Science Department at the University of Saskatoon. The device in Les’s hands – he calls his Ouija Board – is a devise used to test for soil conductivity. In other words the devise is helping us look for salt.

If you look at Les’s feet in the photos and you will recognize the tell tale spot of white that occurs in a highly alkali soil. When the soils are drying out, the salts are drawn to the surface by evapo-transpiration and there fore we get salt crystals at the surface. Les’s devise provides a reading at the surface and again at four feet. We are taking alakali readings all across the future range at Saskatoon Golf & Country Club.

They have salts in much of the soils in Saskatchewan. Salt not only takes away the plants ability to take up water but also ties up much of the nutrients too. When I routed the new nine holes, I intentionally ran the holes over the high areas not only to deal with flooding in the spring but also to get far enough away from the water table and the saline soils underneath. The only area that I could not accomplish this was one small area on the south side where they the old 9th and 18th were - and I intentionally placed the range in this area. This was equally due to it being the ideal location for the range and also to the issue of salts.

The area for the range

So we have a range that has areas of high alkaline soils. Les spent the day taking readings which told us where the soils were alkali and where the soils were acceptable. This told me how much topsoil we could strip and use and what topsoil should be buried with fill to keep the salts from occurring in the top soil layer. Now salts can be “washed” out of the topsoil over time – the process takes a few years and recovering the soils is a common technique. We don’t have the time – so we needed to organize the build to avoid having alkali soil where we will be seeding new grass.

The future range

This trip out by Les was all about where we could get topsoil, how much soil we had to use, how to deal with the soils we had and what we should do with the range. I’ve dealt with a lot of issues – including a very difficult build at Muskoka Bay - but this issue is one is one of the most complicated I have ever had to deal with.

My Latest Golf Canada Article

2008-06-04T07:58:00.007-04:00

Compression and Release

2008-05-26T00:18:00.003-04:00

The 4th at Bandon Dunes

I was at a course a few weeks ago where one of the best holes on the course drops around 60 feet from the tee down into a beautiful valley and then doglegs to the left around a stand of mature pines and oaks. The club was quite convinced that the green must have been visible - when built in the 1920’s - from the tee and that trees had encroached and taken away a beautiful view of the entire hole.

In today’s day and age of golf design, it’s pretty rare to find an architect would present a hole in this manner. In fact in this world of “comfort” architecture – the main overriding philosophy is putting everything in front of player right from the tee so they can see it and understand the strategies. The idea of unveiling a hole a shot at a time is rare since this type of hole isn’t quite as photographic as a hole that unveils itself slowly. This MTV style attention span has spread to golf too – and people simply want it all and want it now – even in golf design. One of the great losses because of this is the near disappearance of a technique called compression and release.

What is compression and release? Compression is when you find yourself in a location that is narrow, very clear defined with no long views. To excellent examples are playing out of a chute of trees or playing a tee shot from a tee surrounded by higher dunes on either side. You don’t have a feel for the landscape around and only feel the edges on the landscape that you are “with-in.” In these situations you find that the golf hole is the clear single focus. The release is felt when you exit that space to a wider area with a long horizon. You immediately feel the expanse of the space around you and tend to look anywhere but at the hole. It’s actually an instinctive reaction to the change – but a fascinating aspect that can be exploited to have a larger impact on a setting you want to feature.

The 4th at Bandon Dunes is a wonderful example where David Kidd takes you between the dunes and out to the landing area. When you get there you find yourself well above the 4th green with a wide open view down the coast. You can’t help but be humbled by that experience and it takes you a while to really take in the green, since your busy admiring the stunning Oregon coastline. David did this intentionally so you’re your first look at the ocean would be as dramatic as possible. The technique he used is compression (down between the dunes) and release (having as wide a view as you get anywhere on the course).

The hole I saw works on the same principle but on a far more subtle level. The tee shot is into a clearly defined tree lined valley that feels tighter than it really is because of the elevated tees and angle. You walk down to the landing area and look to the left to see a spectacular green set up on a natural hogs back. The valley is wider, the clearing is more extensive, and looking from below widens the perspective of the view. You are stunned by the beauty of the green site but also taken back by how beautiful this glade is and how much of the natural undulations of the land that you nw can see. This too is compression and release but a far more subtle version.

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 5 of 5

2008-05-08T22:32:00.006-04:00

“The Golf Course Superintendent” Jeff Carlson

Jeff is in change of America’s only organic course where no pesticides or chemical treatments are allowed. He just recently won the 2008 President’s Award for Environmental Stewardship from the America Golf Course Superintendent Association. Jeff was also involved in Widow’s Walk which has been called an environmental demonstration golf course.

The reason his course – Vineland Golf Club on Martha’s Vineyard, Mass – went this route was because there is only one single source aquifer on the island. While they felt they could “virtually guarantee the safety of the groundwater – 100% was not possible – and that was the standard required to approve the club. So they went organic. The article talks a lot about the trial and error that is still going on in order to maintain the organic commitment but also to keep a good healthy course.

“Our mantra is, we strive for excellent playability, but that doesn’t necessarily mean visual perfection”

Jeff talks about a few of the progressive techniques like using nematodes to deal with grubs – and mentioned that they get a lot of things to trial because of their unique position in the golf community. He provides us with a positive outlook for the future mentioning how many companies are bringing organic products to the table to be ahead of the curve and to be ready for the foreseeable future – I was excited by that comment.

The key he has found is cultural practices - and so did Dr Grant’s study too. He mentions all the techniques they had to develop to limit leaf wetness to deal with problems of fungus. This even includes the old fashioned technique of whisking the dew from the greens. He mentions that fungus has been his biggest battle for the last 6 years.

“When I started, it was the fungal diseases that were the most problematic. With our cultural practices and the organic fungicides that we use, the disease severity is a lot less than it was. We also think – not proven, total anecdotal – that there is some natural selection going on. We think the grasses are starting to adapt. It’s survival of the fittest – disease-resistant grasses occurring naturally.”

He mentions that weeds are still a problem and laments that if he could only use a couple of pre-emergent applications that issue would be gone. He mentions that there really isn’t an organic solution to this problem and ends up talking about a machine that literally applies boiling foam in a concentrated spot spray to kill the plant. The one thing that this points out about going organic is techniques like this – or hand picking which they have to do too - are very labour intensive compared to spraying applications.

I find it fascinating when he points out most women members get the idea and support the idea of organic golf maintenance. You have to wonder if the maleness of golf is actually a hindrance to getting on with doing the right things. Jeff feels that golfers must become willing to accept something a little less perfect looking – that still plays great – to make a move to a practice that is obviously healthier for us all. As he says if we use less, it has to be healthier for everyone. Jeff mentions that superintendents would go more organic if they knew their jobs were not linked to the current level of perfection. The level of expectation is extraordinary now and the organic movement is up against those expectations. One large issue that most superintendents bring up is the fear of losing their jobs because organic golf will not meet member’s expectations. As Jeff points out – they would be more organic already if they had some assurances.

I admire Jeff for taking this challenge and excelling – he is an inspiration for everyone. I think there is a little context needed to understand that his circumstance plays a role in this too. This course is built on sand (excellent drainage), that has a clean water source (no complications of salt), it has a moderating maritime climate (this tends to suppress disease pressure), the grasses are new (selected for the situation and are still fairly pure), this is a high end club with a decent budget, and the golfers have no choice but to accept the conditions that he can present in the circumstance.

This is not said to belittle his accomplishments – which are extraordinary. This is also not said to make it sound impossible when faced with less budget and a tough site. We must have an understanding about how tough certain sites will be and realize that we either have to improve the situation (new grasses, drainage, remove trees) or have slightly lower expectation on tough sites during extreme stress. We’ll all be better off for the change of attitude.

I’ll let Jeff finish with a great final point that could make all the difference.

“Unless golfers begin to have a change or perception and begin to accept those blemishes, and has that same mentality as when he goes to St. Andrews or Hoylake, and accepts those conditions and finds them charming and has a great round of golf. Then you can do it. The professionals and the tours and golf’s hierarchy have to embrace that, too. The guys who are driving the bus.”

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 4 of 5

2008-05-08T06:57:00.009-04:00

“The Activist” Jay Feldman

Jay believes that the use of pesticides in golf is not safe.

He begins by pointing out that pesticide use poses health risks to anyone who comes in contact with them. He goes on to explain the links of pesticide use to hormonal imbalances which place all of us at greater risk to other greater complications like cancer (there has been a speculated link for quite some time). He brings and interesting point up about the idea of combinations of chemicals and even with medications causing us to be at a much greater risk than we realize. If you think about the issue of prescriptions and how pharmacists take so much care to know the other things you are taking to avoid a dangerous reaction between two prescriptions – you can see the potential of what he is pointing out. His feeling is that because pesticide use does get outside the intended target zones at times we are in risk when we often don’t realize (and without any warning to the risk we face).

The most interesting part of his piece is he truly believes that the risk assessment process is flawed. He feels the EPA is often in a position where they never truly understand the risk posed by the pesticide until after the product is in use and that is only through complications through its use do they finally understand the risk.

“So here we are in a realm of having newer and newer chemicals, and as new studies come out, we realize that we’ve introduced new levels of danger, new complexities, and a whole host of effects that the EPA isn’t even looking for.”

Jay believes that if we could simply remove the pesticides from day to day use, we could eliminate the risk. He comes from the viewpoint that public safety supersedes any benefit that products may pose. He believes strongly that organic practices are the way to go and points out the emergence and success of organic farming. He also believes that the agencies have not strong enough and would like to see the golfing public step in and take control over the issue. If educated, they would choose to reduce their exposure by simply saying this is not acceptable.

“Until we get the golfers themselves to engage on this issue, we cannot expect the right thing to happen.”

“The Environmentalist” Brent Blackwater

Brent established the Golf and Environmental Initiative to try and influence the principles used to maintain golf courses as well as have an impact on where those courses should be built. Unlike many lobbyists, he sees new golf courses being built and contributing to the environment. He sees them being important sources of rehabilitation and reclamations. Where he really deviates from the norm is he has no issue with them being built over a former farm. He sees one of the main key points being the treatment of the non-use section of a course where native species can either be protected or introduced making for a better ecosystem within the property.

His issue comes from losing biodiversity, he feels there are places that golf should simply not go (and for the record I agree), anything that reduces important habitat or compromises water quality is unacceptable.

“An adult male with a large body weight might not be that susceptible, for youths and women of child bearing age, exposure to chemical in even very small amounts at the wrong time can do awful things”

While Brent expresses his concern about the potential link between pesticide use and cancer, he also comes across a little more moderate and doesn’t see a need to ban pesticides like Jay, but instead feels the “realistic” answer is Integrated Pest Management. The idea that you don’t automatically spray, but first identify the source of your problems, understand the reasons and spray sparingly if you need to as a last resort. He still feels that golf needs to go organic as it can and points out to the success in organic food to prove that it is possible to change successfully.

He was asked what golf in a perfect world would be like.

“You would be playing on an organic course. The maintenance equipment would be charged by solar power. Recycled water would be used for irrigation, and used efficiently and sparingly. There’d be a greater variety of wildlife habitats.”

To Part 5

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 3 of 5

2008-05-07T07:34:00.004-04:00

“The Golf Course Architect” Michael Hurdzan

“Opponents of golf believe it’s an unnatural environment, and that we use too much water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels to maintain plant material in an unnatural state.”

Mike goes on to defend golf as being under attack because it is a symbol of development but I’m not sure that’s true anymore. I don’t think we’re seen as gobbling up land as much as people fear golf being a detriment to the environment. Mike later on agrees with the criticism of golf using too much water. When faced with the solution to the problem of water use he points to the development of new types of turfgrass that can survive less water or thrive in grey water. I can see his point when he goes on to mention Seashore Palspalum - but we really don’t have a new grass that accomplishes this in cool season grasses and many of the latest grasses require higher maintenance.

“We’re going to keep developing better grasses that require less water, pesticide, fertilizer – that’s the trend”

He talk a lot about the complications of approvals and points out that often people use misinformation about what golf courses do - and get away with it - because most people at hearings don’t have the scientific background to realize that many claims of golf courses being a risk to the environment is simply scare tactics used by the environmentalists to stop development. When pressed about the pesticide use Mike makes the analogy about there being a fine line between medicine and poison and that careful application is the key to safety.

Mike one interesting angle is when he talks about the golf course as a positive form, citing recreational space and the role it has taken in reclaiming sites. Mike’s Widow’s Walk project is mentioned in the article and certainly represents everything that golf can do to transform a lost site. He does a good job trying to on one hand defend golf and on the other still acknowledge the problems we all face. The only time he loses me when he suggests GPS mowers without operators are in our future too.

“The Grass Expert” James Snow

When asked if we could go British Style (my question to superintendents all winter as I researched) he simply answered that its not possible because the British Isles have the climate that is conducive to growing turfgrass and we don’t. He continues on with a detailed list of nasty pests and weeds that the US course will almost certainly face and that the typical UK course never needs to fear.

“In the UK the problems are minor. They have the right climate, they don’t have the problems we have with weed, with insects, with disease, and they don’t even have to irrigate their fairways.”

The other assertion he makes is that the American golfer is not yet ready for that change. He mentions if they don’t get what they want they are not going to buy it. That the culture remains that once the conditions improve, the reaction is to ask for even more improvement. The problem - of course - has lead to us to a point where turf is being pushed to the edge and any desired reduction in inputs will certainly take its toll on the turf and also the stability of a superintendent’s position. James is a remarkable reality check to people like me clamoring for change – now – telling us to understand that the golfers will resist this harshly and won’t lower their expectations.

When confronted with the pesticide issue James is blunt.

“Well you’d rather not have any if you had a choice, but your not going to have a golf course if you don’t use some.”

He goes on to talk about limited use and many other aspects of studies similar to Dr. Grant’s work. I would suggest you go to my “Future of Golf in Canada” series if you need further information on the realities of trying to go without pesticides on a typical parkland course. Here is the one on pesticides: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2008/03/future-of-golf-course-architecture-in_11.html

One of the more interesting aspects of Jim’s interview is his stance on water. He agrees with smarter use, more effluent water, better grasses etc – but at the same time points out golf is a 65 billion dollar industry and should be treated like all other industries that require water to survive. You can’t ask golf to cut drastically like they did in Georgia recently (10% of normal use!) and not ask Coca Cola to do the same. He says that the visibility of what they do makes them standout when other industries use a great deal of water too - and need to also share the reductions. He points out that water will clearly be the key issue going forward and uses the declining aquifer in Las Vegas as a great example. He says the loss of golf is inconsequential compared to the eventual need to relocate people as the aquifer dries up.

Milton, outside Toronto froze growth until they finally arranged a water connection to Lake Ontario so that they would not put undue pressure on their aquifer. I’m surprised that Palm Springs, Vegas, and Phoenix haven’t had development frozen if the statistics are true about the declining resource in each community.

To Part 4

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 2 of 5

2008-05-06T07:25:00.018-04:00

change your expectations

The Remarks of John Barton

“Golf in America will face a crisis over water. There simply won’t be enough to go around for golf courses to continue to do what they have been doing.”

I have often heard water being called the “new oil” and that some even feel that more wars will be started over water than any other factor in the future. The use of water in semi-arid and arid conditions particularly in the south west of the United States is something that is incomprehensible in the long run. I agree with his assertion that golf may be forced to disappear in places like Las Vegas and Phoenix if those cities continue to rapidly expand while the source of water continues to deplete. Water will simply be too expensive – socially and economically – for golf to exist in the long, long term.

remember that kids play and they are at greater risk

“Can we be sure that the chemicals aren’t harmful?”

One of the great observations brought up in this article is how often that a product was approved by the EPA and then requiring banning after collected evidence proved that a product carried a harmful side effect. I did all the spraying of my parents apple orchard for quite a few years as a teenager and I know what instructions on the bags said and it was enough for me to don the space suit every time out. While we know that today’s chemicals carry a lower toxicity, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are safe or more importantly fully understood yet.

His summary contains a wonderful paragraph that describes where we seem to be headed if this movement truly takes hold – and to be honest I like it.

"As water management becomes scarcer, as organic management practices increase, as environmentalism and environmental legislation start to bite more than they have, as the economy struggles, and as we come to appreciate the aesthetics of golf courses in all their many natural beautiful hues, the way the game looks will change. And the way it plays will change too, with firmer and faster turf demanding a return to shot-making, creativity, the bump and run.”

If you remember my “Future of Golf In Canada” series – you will see that I also drew a similar conclusion after spending almost two months on this subject before writing for the week. The series is here: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2008/03/future-of-golf-course-architecture-in.html We will be eventually legislated down this road, we will need to change our expectations on what our courses look like and we end up with courses that play a little different than the typical American Parkland layout.

The Sidebars

walk always

“A Call to Action – What You can Do?”

The sidebar touches on all the key points: get involved, support the golf superintendent through this change, make the personal decisions that have an impact like walking, change your mind about what good conditioning means, and make the changes at home to follow through at all levels of your life. Nothing earth shattering but a good list for someone who is new to this issue. I think the key factor here is if you believe in lower the clubs impact, you must also be vocal and supportive to the superintendent by changing people’s expectations. All the superintendents I know like the idea but fear losing their jobs because the expectations don’t change in the membership. If you want change – you must support them through what will be a very tough time.

“Golf Digest Changes its Views on Conditioning”

This simply talks about the fact that rankings have changed how the raters should rate the conditions of the course. The methodology has been changed to reflect the new approach promoted in this piece. I think the editors are noble – but I’m not as convinced that the rankers will have the same view. Most are single digit handicaps who got that way by caring a great deal about the score they shoot – a bad bounce or bad lie will effect what they think of a course – at least that has been my experience with them.

Could Seminole disappear?

“Global Warming”

This sidebar talks about how many coastal courses are at risk if the seas rise due to global warming. If someone has proof that the seas are in fact rising please send it through to me. I believe in the principle of reducing our impact hole-heartedly but I have yet to see a definitive proof of this phenomenon that is not based upon a model rather than measurements. If it is true, the notion of losing at least part of courses like Fishers Island, Seminole and the TPC at Sawgrass is depressing.

To Part 3

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 1

2008-05-05T07:59:00.007-04:00

I was in the airport and had a quick scan in the book store to see what was in the current of Golf Digest issue beyond instruction - and the front cover said, “Plus - The Most Important Article We’ve Ever Published - page 196.” I opened it up to see what this article was about and read the title “How Green is Golf?” I didn’t need to read any of it and simply walked to the counter and paid my money to buy the article – they threw in the magazine. This was the first issue of Golf Digest that I have bought in a lot of years – and I’ll buy lots more if they give me one article a month as good as this.

John Barton opens his article with a mention of the first Golf and the Environment conference in 1995 and allows that to become the opening. It gives the impression that the movement is new but actually it has greater roots than that – but most don’t realize that the Golf Superintendents have as an industry been trying to become leaders in this area for quite some time. They often take a beating in this article – but I can tell you through personal experience that the leaders in the industry are well out in front on this issue. The difference now of course is that the subject of golf and the environmental impact has become a political hot button for non-golfers. The Golf Industry finds itself under enormous pressure.

This is an excellent article - and I think you should go out and buy the magazine and read this article.

Where it works best is the fact that John takes seven completely different people from all sides of the issue and gives them a voice. He begins with “The Golf Course Architect” Michael Hurdzan to speak for the architects but ends up speaking on behalf of the golf industry. He then turns “The Activist” Jay Feldman to talk mainly about the inherent risk of pesticides but also talks about some common misconceptions – some of this is either eye-opening or controversial – but well worth the read to understand where certain opinions stem from. The one I enjoyed the most was “The Golf Course Superintendent” Jeff Carlson who runs the only truly organic golf course in the United States. This section will inform you a great deal about what the environmentalists and public seem to want and what it means to you as a golfer.

“The Regulator” with Robert Wood seemed a little out of place with the others and deals mainly with his role in protecting wetlands. “The Advocate” with Ronald Dodson of Audoban International was one I looked forward to since he has played such a large role in getting the environmental movement going with-in golf, but strangely John seems more interested in following the controversy over the name Audoban than the actual role of the organization. This is an opportunity clearly lost. Everybody likes the goal of the organization, but I think John’s note about cost ($9,500 for new development) does explain some people’s questions about the money involved.

“The Grass Expert” James Snow is an interesting contrast useful to explain where the problems will come for golf in trying to go organic. His explanation about why the US can’t adopt the UK style because of climate is fascinating. Finally John concludes with the perfect choice with “The Environmentalist” Brent Blackwater. Imagine a lobbyist for Friends of the Earth who is also a single digit handicap golfer – nothing better than understanding the issues from both sides. He certainly makes a strong case for change - but also makes it very clear that golf has a place. He simply feels that we can be much better environmentally as an industry – and so do many people working in the industry.

Environmentalism in golf isn’t going to go away – this is just the early stages of what will be the most remarkable change the game has seen since the introduction of the Haskell Ball.

I’ll begin tomorrow by touching on each person’s comments – except Robert Wood and Ronald Dodson because I see no point - and discuss what they had to say. I’ll also touch on the sidebars which deserve some minor comment too.

To Part 2

Golf is – sort of - Exempt

2008-04-22T21:47:00.003-04:00

"Ontario's proposed ban on the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides will be the toughest such legislation in North America once it becomes law next year, supporters said Tuesday."

The full article from CBC.ca is found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/080422/n042295A.html

Ontario's ban will likely take effect next spring, but there will be a few exceptions, McGuinty said. Pesticides will still be allowed for use in farming, forestry or health and safety, such as controlling mosquitoes that can carry diseases like the West Nile virus.

(I edited this with the actual statement made in the legislature)

An exception will also be made for golf courses; however, that exception would only be given if golf courses comply with the requirements set out in regulations that would be made if the legislation is enacted, through integrated pest management programs.

The golf courses will be legislated to participate in the Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) run by the University of Guelph. If that is the case – this is a great solution. The problem is this is government – which is still susceptable to further lobbying before becoming legislation - and the ambiguous nature of this statement leaves you with doubt.

The other issue is Golf Courses may be exempt – but there is no guarantees that the pesticides they use today will be available come next year - they are two sepperate issues. This is a long way from being over – but at least golf is recognized as an industry that can not be immediately legislated to go pesticide free.

I think reducing the use of pesticides is very important to all of us. But I fear the lobbist don't fully understand the implications of eliminating pesticides. For example, my family ran an apple orchard for a few years. If you don't spray on a regular basis, you get apple scab. In my opinion apple scab does nothing to the quality of the fruit or the taste - but people won't buy an apple with scab because it doesn't look right.

I think we need to make sure we understand what we are doing rather than making a purely emotional decision.

Ontario to Ban Pesticides

2008-04-21T21:02:00.006-04:00

Snow Mold

“Ontario's Liberal government will introduce legislation tomorrow to implement a province wide ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides, keeping one of their key election promises from last year.”

The article from The Star: http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/416766

The province wide ban is aimed at replacing a patchwork of local pesticide bylaws, but Ontario farmers will be exempt. There's no word yet if the province also plans to exempt golf courses from the ban.

I want to repeat this part: “There's no word yet if the province also plans to exempt golf courses from the ban.”

My understanding is the golf courses will be exempt – that’s always been assumed and discussed - but reading this line and knowing the implications scares the hell out of all of us in golf industry. For perspective: Pesticide is a blanket name for herbicide, insecticide and fungicide. In a presentation by Doctor Grant from Cornell this winter – where she talked about the idea of reducing or eliminating pesticides - she said that North-Eastern golf courses don’t stand a chance against snow mold if there is not available product used to protect the turf through the winter. While there was a whole host of ways that we would end up with dead turf, the simplest being snow mold, may become the most devastating if we are not allowed minimal treatment.

"We always said it was a priority when we came out with our platform last year, and it's had tremendous support around the province from what we've received as far as the environmental registry is concerned," Gerretsen said. "Ninety per cent of the people that responded to it responded in a favourable way."

The article talks about a 90% support – but the question comes do even 90% understand the implications of making this a reality. This is where everyone in the field is frustrated – since farming will continue to be exempt when potentially golf is not. So its OK to spray the food that we eat, but not the grass that we walk on – in shoes.

As one superintendent said to me recently – even if we are exempt now – doesn’t mean we should expect to be exempt in 10 years. The lobby has just had one a huge victory – and this will encourage them on towards achieving their eventual goal of a complete ban on all pesticides.

If your a golfer and your not worried - you should be!

The Opener inspired by Pine Valley

2008-03-25T23:36:00.011-04:00

click play twice

The missing line would likely have been: By leaving the front wide open players can play a bounce in approach or intentionally play short to remove all the trouble. If you want to make a birdie you have to take the risk of going long.

This was a bit of an experiment, but I liked it enough to keep it as is - despite the shakey nature and the last couple of seconds are missing.

My influence - the opener at Pine Valley.

I've used a similar approach to the opener as Pine Valley:

1. Lots off room off the tee for a comfortable opener
2. A short route where you can cut the corner with an aggressive play, but pay the consequences if you miss the shot.
3. The approach to the green is wide open and on grade allowing a passive running approach.
4. The more aggressive you get the narrower the green becomes and the green falls away on all three sides clearly influenced by the opening green at Pine Valley.
I always thought that was the best opener in golf and have gladly lifted many of the ideas to open this particular course.

The Future of Golf Architecture in Canada – Part 6 -

2008-03-21T09:13:00.004-04:00

Prairie Dunes

If we begin thinking from the outset that nature will need to be part of our designs and strategies, we open ourselves to touch less of the site, leaving more of the natural features and leave less maintained area. We will start to the blur the line between the natural surroundings and the golf course - like Prairie Dunes does. This will give our courses a greater sense of place - separating it from the typical modern looking course - making the course unique. In turn these courses will become cheaper to build by minimizing earthmoving, reducing the stripping of topsoil, and getting back to more seeding and less sod. We will be building courses that are a more realistic economic model that will allow them to open with lower greens fees and let then the market dictate price. If the course finds it can charge more than the business model, the profits become much greater and the businesses becomes even more of a success.

Old Sandwich

Since our playing fields will get less input – the courses will play firm and fast – so we will need to design courses to accommodate that style of play. The fairways will need more width to accommodate the run in the ball. This will place more emphasis on the rumples and rolls in the land since the ball will bound more. This allows designers to make greater use of the undulation to dictate strategy and reduce the modern reliance on bunkering to dictate strategy. The small rumples and undulations around the greens will become far more important particularly if kept short. This will open up far more options to putt, bump and run or flop around the greens. This helps the average player play to their strengths, but hurts the good player who has to choose between all the options opening the possibility of a poor decision. These courses will need to feature far more greens on grade and be more open in front to allow running approaches. Since the ground is now part of play, the player has the option to either use the land or play a conventional approach to the green which knowing it is more firm and harder to stop a ball on. Either way they need to have both options available in a firm and fast environment.

Barndougle Dunes

Our designs are going to have to have extensive water collection systems and large storage facilities from the outset. Our goal – even if not a requirement – should be close to self-reliance. The approach of collecting everything and distributing it back to the irrigation system will become common practice. That will also allow us to control what leaves the site and prevent any residue from escaping the property. The use of natural filtering for any water collected or more importantly any water leaving the site will help ensure that treatments don’t exit the property. I also see a lot more tree removal to provide far more open green sites – and even those sites can’t have ridges or hills that block the sun – otherwise the low input idea will not work. I think the real future of low input golf is with the turfgrass research industry. They are the ones that will make the greatest stride. Velvet Bent has had very mixed results - but there is no question about the environmental benefits of Velvet. It’s finding the right grasses to do the job.

Thinking outside the box – nothing could be more beneficial than a return to walking courses. Imagine not requiring cart paths, carts and cart storage facilities – that would save a million dollars or more. Think of the benefits to the environment when you think on the big picture. Of course designers will need to return to building walking courses – which would be a great idea since Cart courses generally suck.

Bandon Trails

We all need to change our ideas about what we think is Canadian golf is and realize there are better ways to be more environmentally responsible without compromising the quality of the game. We need to realize that our current state of golf is not sustainable and that a new approach to golf course design and maintenance will be good for all of us in the long term.

The Future of Golf Architecture in Canada – Part 5 - British Style Maintenance

2008-03-19T08:00:00.011-04:00

St. Andrew's

Eventually Canadian golf will be forced to accept "brown" through changes in legislation, why not do something about it now.

At the Calgary Golf Course Superintendents Conference I was able to ask a number of superintendents about the possibility of going to a British style approach to maintenance - which meant fewer inputs, lower fertility and less water – with a new course. Most loved the idea until I asked about existing courses. The certain saw the benefits and would like to do it but many feared the membership’s reaction the first time the turf went a little brown.

Crystal Down 5th

In reading a recent article by Mike Miller – superintendent of Crystal Downs – He outlined the process and timelines it would take to have a more British approach to turf at Crystal Downs. His feelings were that without re-seeding it would take 10 years to change the turf to accept lower water demand and reduce the need for inputs. The article can be found here: http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/2008/feb/feature6.asp

Brora's 6th - no fairway irrigation

It will be hard for existing courses to convert, but it is a lot easier to plan for it with new designs since there is no existing turf to convert and we start with a blank slate. Why wouldn’t we create a new course ready for a different approach to maintenance and get ahead of the curve.

The only way to make this goal realistic is to provide ideal growing conditions. The reason that British courses require so little input is that they are generally out in the open and on sandy soils. When greens receive full sun they are able to use photosynthesis to make lots of food which makes them less likely to be susceptible to disease and pests. This tells us that if architects want to help make this change in maintenance styles we will need to spend time finding green sites that are excellent places to grow turf. We need to make sure the site is well drained and take down enough trees. This is where we need the authorities to recognize the goal. Since trees are the greatest threat to healthy turf, clearings around greens need to be wide. The authorities will have to support more tree removal on new projects – understanding this is for the greater good.

Alwoody - how we will eventually look

Canadians will need to change their current expectations of wall to wall green because is not sustainable. They will have to understand that turf can be green or brown and still be healthy.

To Part 6

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part 4 - The Issue of Water

2008-03-18T08:00:00.011-04:00

Twenty years ago, the number one question was do you have enough money to build a golf course. Ten years later it became is there enough land left after the environmentally sensitive areas are delineated. The most common question now is do you have a reliable source of water.

To give you some perspective, Calgary is awash with money but the Bow River in Calgary has no water licenses available. It’s not hard to understand why there has only been limited building of new courses throughout the Bow Valley despite the need for golf. Here in Ontario it gets harder each year to get water taking permits. In a candid conversation with a member of one of the Conservation Authorities I was told, “We have water issues – golf courses and farmers are seen as big users. Right now it’s more politically popular to get golf courses to cut their usage first – once that’s done we’ll go after the farmers.” The Ministry on the Environment has often hinted that they may stop issuing permits for wells for golf courses. Water is the number one issue in golf.

The 10th at Copper Creek with main irrigaton pond

Most new courses have been built to minimize the impact of their water taking. They can only use the excess water from the river they’re on during peak flow periods – the rest of the flow is unavailable for use. What that means is taking water from rivers and streams only takes place during spring run and the occasional storm large enough to exceed certain volumes. The golf courses have had to build massive storage ponds that they fill when water becomes available and then supplement that with whatever run-off they can collect. Existing courses are now being asked to work off the same system and those that don’t probably will down the road.

But what about Grey Water you ask. While the available resource is enticing for everyone involved you also have to consider that Grey Water is essentially the water left over from washing dishes, clothes and taking showers. It’s an interesting source unless the levels of soap or salt are high and then it weakens turfgrass with repeated use. Imagine that the more you use the thirstier the plant will become until you get natural rain – add in the fact that salts take up nutrients and you can see why turf can easily decline in this environment. There are more than a few famous Canadian courses with “bad” water where the turf is always under stress – and so is the superintendent.

The 1st at Copper Creek and the massive storage pond

So getting to the future - I think it’s reasonable to look forward and see a future where a new course must supply all its own irrigation through the collection of rainwater and snow melt. We have an example with Copper Creek which can store around 20 million gallons. The drainage network collects 75% of the water that falls onto the site and channels it into the storage ponds. The water is moved around using a combination of pipes and pumps mainly to avoid large fluctuations in the ponds. Supplementing is limited to high peak flows on the Humber but I’m quite convinced they could survive without it although the ponds would likely look a bit empty at times.

To Part 5

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part 3 - Economics

2008-03-12T07:38:00.012-04:00

The photo is of Sagebrush in BC

taken by Jeff Mingay

The last two entries talked about environmental issues – which I’m sure I’ll return to before this series is up – but today I wanted to touch on other issues that will have a huge impact on future golf developments. I’m going to continue to talk about a series of related subjects for about a week and then pull them all together with what I think is a realistic solution. Golf is going to change – the question is no longer if – its how much.

The Economic Model Doesn’t Work

Golf has clearly entered a period of stagnation that began at the turn of the century with a noticeable decline in participation. The price to play golf had turned players away for the first time in decades. All the while developers continued to over-build a market that was in decline, creating enormous price pressure particularly with the new higher end courses. The problem stems from too much ego getting involved in the developments with each mega project attempting to one up the previous course in order to draw attention away. The result is that each business model became more unrealistic than the last – people seemed to have forgotten that this is still a business where revenue must outpace expenses.

Study after study has reached the same conclusion. The game has become too expensive, takes too much time and in many cases is too difficult for the average person – and until the game becomes more inclusive of different skill levels, socio-economic groups and does not involve a whole day - the game will struggle. This doesn’t mean and end to new projects – far from it - but they will have to be better businesses in the future. They will need to be built for less, require less maintenance, and be inclusive of all levels of players.

shape only tees, greens and bunkers

Golf designers will need to show some restraint. In particular they need to avoid the development of what I would call Extreme Golf. It makes for great photos and lousy playing experiences. Just because we have the equipment and skills to build in even the most extreme places – it still doesn’t mean we should. The amount of earthmoving required, the potential for environmental damage, the shear cost, the difficulties for grow in and the development of cart only golf courses is not healthy for the game.

The economics and designs will improve if we choose to disturb less of what’s there. We don’t need to strip an entire site of topsoil, reshape the site to suit or image of a golf hole and then put it all back together. By finding the holes that nature has left and accepting some of the quirks as part of the design – we can become less intrusive – and a little more creative as designers. This will also leave much more of the topsoil in place, reduce disturbance amd create a cheaper build.

To Part 4

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part Two - Pesticides

2008-03-11T09:24:00.007-04:00

Lossiemouth

“Reduce & Eliminate the Use of Pesticides?” – Jennifer Grant

This was the lecture I wanted to see. Could we maintain a course with no pesticides? Was it still possible to provide acceptable playing conditions after legislation that forced golf to turn to little or no inputs? Could we turn back to a more UK style of maintenance? After all, my lecture two days later talked openly about the possibility of contending with this circumstance as part of the potential vision of the future.

Dr. Grant talked about Cornel’s experimental program going on at the Green Course at Bethpage State Park. They had been a running experiment for around six years with the goal of find out what effects different cultural practices, levels of input, and the use of chemicals had on turfgrass. They also wanted to investigate the use of biological controls and alternative approaches to see what sort of impact they could have on turfgrass and whether there were alternative approaches that work. Their focus was also on testing solutions that were more environmentally responsible right up against common cultural practices.

The Old Course

The 18 greens were divided into six groups and each was put under different regimes to see how they react. One of the test groups were given no pesticide and herbicide, the next set were maintained under the Integrated Pest Management and the last group allowed anything the superintendent wanted to use. Each group was then divided to break out different practices under each scenario.

While environmentalists and politicians may want to completely ban the use of pesticides and herbicides – the answer was swift. At Bethpage it proved impossible since dollar spot alone was enough to wipe out the greens. The study quickly concluded that no cultural practice was capable of dealing with the threat and even if they managed to avoid the snow mold or dollar spot another disease like Pythium was always there to finish them off. The greens need some applications to survive.

But what became interesting was they quickly found out that “light” chemical use was almost as successful as an unlimited use of chemicals. When you added in particular cultural practices and the use of organics to control the disease and pest pressures on turf and the conclusions were fascinating. What they learned was by selecting certain “lower toxicity” products and limiting the spraying to a minimum and increasing certain cultural practices they could meet green expectations of around 9 feet and take the environmental impact down up to 90% from the unlimited approach. While no input is impossible, minimal input is not. It’s complicated at times, requires additional maintenance, a little more expense – but possible!

There are two key things that designers and regulators must read into this study to see this become the standard to which we all should strive. They must recognize the old problems are still problems and become bigger problems since the superintendent has half there tools removed from the box. We need to head down this path BUT we need to ensure the growing environment is ideal to allow for the production of carbohydrates the key to making sure the plant is as strong as possible and is more resistant to disease.

Alwoody

One interesting note was when the golf courses began to brown a little through reduced input, the tested the quality of the roll of the ball roll and found it just as consistent in that low input environment. In other words they may not have looked as “nice” (ie. green) but they played exactly the same. I think if anyone really wants to address this whole issue correctly – the answer to reducing is follow their example of lower inputs and better environmental choices when they need a produce. The mantra of reducing “toxicity risk” is a great one. Toxicity risk looks at the opportunity for the chemical to migrate, the risk of contact, the strength of the product and places a value that needs to be multiplied by the application rate. It values the overall impact to the environment and helps us make the best decisions for the ecosystem rather than a blanket decision.

To Part 3

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part One - The Enviornment

2008-03-10T09:20:00.009-04:00

Photo courtesy of Brian Ewan

“We have a duty to minimize our imprint on the environment”

I plan on talking for at least a week about the environment and golf. I set out to give a lecture on the future of golf course architecture and found myself openly questioning the way things are done in both design and maintenance of new golf courses. This journey began a few weeks back with my learning that Ontario would head towards a ban of pesticides - while golf courses are expected to have an initial exemption - they are likely facing a long term ban. I knew right away that maintenance practices in Canada are going to have to change and so were the designs. Once you add the issues of water restrictions and the ever-increasing costs to build and maintain it makes it so clear that the golf course industry will undergo a transition and be forced to become even more environmentally responsible (most are better stewards than people realize). I knew that my design work was going to have to reflect what is to come – and place my new courses in the best position to cope with the future - rather to foolishly build to today’s environmental standards and leave the courses struggling to deal with each change in legislation.

Last week I attended the Canadian Golf Superintendents Conference in Calgary. I went to lectures on turf, fairway renovation, dealing with trees, soils, foliar fertilization (my brain hurt afterwards), eliminating pesticides (tomorrow’s discussion), the European Environmental Movement, and even rating courses with Bob Weeks. I also saw lectures by well know superintendents reflecting on the changes in their business and attended a panel discussion with an open mike for questions. I was able to seek out and ask many great superintendents from all over the country about the changes they face with the environment and what is possible. I went there with the goal of finding out if Canadian Superintendents believed that a reduced input program is possible taking our turf closer to a UK model in order to be more environmentally responsible.

One of my lectures included Ken Seims from Loch Lomond talking about the Environmental Movement in Europe and for the first time I was able to see how an existing course could become a better steward of the land. It was an eye-opening lecture on all the possibilities outside of the playing areas and what we could accomplish if we looked at the property as a whole – including all the buildings. I didn’t get exactly what I sought but I did get a window into what it would require. One of the keys that Ken stressed was drainage since it was the key to better choices on turf selection which is one cultural key to reduce inputs to turf. Another lecture talked about the fact that sunlight and the production of carbohydrates in the plant is the key to avoiding disease pressure and that airflow is not near as big a factor.

Jack's Point NZ

One fascinating part of asking a lot of questions is what you learn by accident. I was tipped off by another superintendent to ask Dr. Loyns about the potential of golf courses as a carbon sinks. He said that a study at the University of Colarado confirmed that golf courses are 50% better as carbon sinks than natural grasslands. Can it be possible that the future will have golf course could selling carbon credits?

To Part 2 – can we eliminate pesticides and herbicides?

More Jericho!

2008-02-28T21:47:00.003-05:00

Courtesy of Robert Thompson - From Backspin, a history of BC golf:

Article on Lost Courses - June 2005 - Golf Canada

2008-02-27T16:16:00.007-05:00

This article was written in 2005 with Robert Thompson. It was inspired by Daniel Wexler's awesome book Missing Links and chronicles a few significant losses from across Canada. I hope you enjoy the read:

click on each picture to enlarge and read

Computer Aided Design

2008-02-27T07:23:00.016-05:00

“The design process remains unchanged by technology. It is the rest of the process that has gained speed and efficiency through the use of computers.”

That was my quote used in an article by fellow golf architect Mike Nuzzo about using technology in Golf Course Design. It came from a discussion about Autocadd and technology in the golf profession.

Not every firm uses Autocadd, in fact a few still hand draw plans, but they should be. Working on Microstation or Autocadd offers no aid to the design of holes, but the side benefits easily make the conversion worth the while. When I was working for the former employer we changed from hand drawn plans to Computer Aided Design. The choice was Microstation since the platform was clearly in front of Autocadd at that time - but Autocadd would likely be the choice now. I spent a difficult 6 months putting together two sets of working drawings -which forced me to be proficient using the software. I spent the next five years exploring the limits of the software and benefiting from the faster and faster production of working drawings. The process of getting grading from trace to grading plans was originally about the same as drawing by hand, but it was 10 times faster making changes, creating the secondary working drawings and adding outside information since it was drawn on the same file.

It would be fair to say within a year I was 50% more productive and we avoided hiring another employer for a few three years just through this new efficiency. The big gain was the ability to share information with other consultants – and once we did the first golf course community we knew that it was making co-ordination far easier. There are those who say all design should be done in the field – that’s fine until you have sanitary and storm water pipes running through golf holes - that’s something you can’t do on the fly.

Once you become comfortable with CAD you begin to find the secondary benefits from software including quick and easy cut and fills, the ability to generate earthmoving profiles, the use of models to explain ideas, the ability to section out information so that nothing is drawn twice, the ability to make changes to every drawing simultaneously through reference files, etc etc.

I have so much time with computers that I can route a course and design holes right on the computer because I don’t find the medium restrictive. I prefer to route and design on sketch because there is something far more pleasing about doing this by hand.

The more you have time to explore the possibilities in technology – the more you see the possibilities for efficiency. For example I used to hand draw before and after images often taking a week to produce a full set – then I was introduced to Corel Photoshop and in one day I knew I would not draw by hand again. I can do better images in far less time by altering photos. But not every experiment works out – I bought a digital voice data recorder with the idea of recording my thoughts instead of writing them as I go. The software I bought was supposed to convert this into text, but the number of mistakes made it too time consuming to fix and instead I listen to the recording and type out the report – although that still saves me time.

“What has not changed in the past decade or two is designers make lousy computer operators and computer operators make lousy designers” Mike Hurdzan – from his book Golf Course Architecture

before

after

I’ll never understand people’s need to criticize the use of technology, when in the end the quality of the golf course is what matters and has nothing to do with the tools you use. If technology can bring more efficiency and leave you more time for design and site supervision – why wouldn’t this be a huge benefit to an architect. But the technophobes will always disagree and say that any use of technology in design is wrong. I wonder if they also are against the use of a laser level on tees and greens too.

For a second article to read on this subject try Mike Nuzzo’s Golf Design Tools essay: http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/Design_Tools.pdf

Please Play the Shorter Tees

2008-02-26T07:54:00.007-05:00

One of the best memories I have playing golf was at Royal Portrush. We caught a three to four club wind (even the pro thought it was rough day!) making for a very complicated day to play. Robert and Steve opted for the men’s tees (about 6,600 yards and change). I opted to play the member’s up at around 6,400 yards because the wind was blowing and I wanted to have some fun – and some flexibility in club selection due to the wind. The starter said your handicap allows you to play back – and I said we’re all better off if I play up today.

My father headed forward to the farthest tees up (around 5400 yards). The starter called out to my father and said, "excuse me sir but you’re heading for the ladies tee – you’re not supposed to play from there." My father said, "I’m 75, I have two artificial hips and two pins in my shoulders, I can not carry the ball more than 180 yards anymore on the best shot. I have found that I need to play those tees to make the carries into the wind possible – besides this way you’ll see me in under 3 ½ hours – and isn’t that more important."

He laughed and said “My apologies sir - your quite right to play up – I wish other visitors thought like you do.”

People need to play the appropriate tees for their ability. Too often I’m faced with people wanting alteration to their golf course to deal with the fact that their game is eroding and certain holes are becoming too challenging. I remember at Oshawa the 15th involves a long carry from a raised tee over a sizable depression. One of the committee was adamant about grading out that fantastic depression and adding fairway. It wasn’t for the benefit of the course – it was because he could no longer make the carry and now felt the course was unfair. He refused to play the whites. I’m stunned at how many times the phrase unfair is uttered from a player who refuses to move up.

This article from the Wall Street Journal is all about playing the proper tees: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120371508597486573-lMyQjAxMDI4MDIzMzcyMTM1Wj.html

I love the suggestion from the article. “A couple of readers said courses should charge extra for playing from the back tees. Frank Thomas, the former U.S. Golf Association technical director, says -- in all seriousness -- that courses should give free post round beer to foursomes willing to play from up front. "They might end up selling more beer in the end, and probably [would] be able to squeeze in a few more foursomes per day, because of faster play," he said.

I’m sick of watching six handicaps who couldn’t beat me straight up (I’m a 14) playing from 7,200 -7,400 yards in order to “play the whole course.” Not only are they completely out of their element but they are going to become a certain source of slow play as they take lots of extra shots and look for golf balls throughout their round. I’m still not sure how they get enjoyment from having their hat handed to them every time they play.

I played up at Royal Portrush because it was a tough day and my skill set is limited not by length but by consistency. I needed some opportunity to get the driver out of my hands to help me manage the day. My father played up because he is limited not by his skill, but by the fact he can no longer generate any distance on his shots. I wish others saw the merits of playing at the correct distance for the day. If you get on a role and begin to score – then move back and see if you can continue. That was how I was taught to play as a junior – I earned each tee till I played well from the back – unfortunately I’ve regressed through negligence and I’ve moved my way forward till I score consistently – now if I could get some the seniors to do the same.

Is Golf Healthy in Canada?

2008-02-25T07:38:00.007-05:00

I started to think about this subject after reading and article called More Americans are Giving Up Golf written by Paul Vitello. The link is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The article contains the usually gloomy statistics that make you sit up and take notice of it: “The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation. “

The article sites goes on to sight the typical factors that are hurting the participation levels:
1. The game taking too much time.
2. Roles in society have adjusted and men are expected to have the week-ends with the family
3. The costs of the game have risen to a point that golf is too expensive for many.

There was also a study from IPSOS Ried a few years back that indicated that unlike American Golf, the Canadian game was just fine – and I openly questioned the results and the polling methods – particularly since the RCGA paid for the study. The link to that article is here for your perspective: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/course-closures-outpace-openings-in.html

So is it healthy? – well yes and no.

I started to think about private first. They are full of older members who were brought up with the golf memberships and country club social circles, but the new players are much harder to come by. The majority of new members seem to be corporate in nature where the game of golf is still important to conducting business. What they have trouble finding is the younger social player who is simply there to play golf. They have too many options and also there has been a massive change in society where the family comes first. After all most families now need two jobs just to afford a house! The successful private clubs, like an Oakdale in Toronto, are built around the entire family. I’m most curious to see how Coppinwood and Goodwood do in Toronto with their incredibly high initiation fees.

The High end Public market is largely saturated in most areas since too many projects were begun to be larger and flashier than the last but requiring a much more difficult business model to support them. Once there became too many of these courses to fill the niche, or the price point was cut by competition in the market place, an some of these clubs are incapable of operating under this financial structure – there was too much financed to work. Now the countdown begins on how long the person with deep pockets is going to underwrite the operation.

The destination course or resort is the next one having a tough go right now – think about the effect of a 25% change in the dollar had one them. They desperately need the dollar to change and yet the same source of the currencies’ strength is the Oil Boom out west which has fueled the massive build out of real estate golf in British Columbia. I think these two saw off overall but certain regions like Niagara are getting killed in the economic environment. The other concern is the level of over-supply in certain areas out west as this boom takes place – it reminds me of both Ontario booms that ended up in the same place.

The public courses where the green fee is manageable and is in decent condition is great demand – in fact this will always be strong since this business model is fine from boom to recession.

The reality is “golf” is fine – the problem stems from too many bad business models built in the last 20 years and the market will have to shake this out before it can move forward again. Once the price for a round is reasonable the players will come – the only problem is someone will have to foot the bill until the model works or we will need a bankruptcy to bring in a new owner who borrowed less and is able to change a lower rate to make the business model feasible. That’s the real problem in golf – it seems everyone forgets that it’s a business too.

Here is Robert Thompson's take (which comments on the same article I do and then on another article about it by Garth Woolsey): http://www.ontgolf.ca/g4g/

Here is Garth Woolsey's from the Tronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Golf/article/305899

Things I Learned about St. Andrew’s Yesterday

2008-02-20T07:13:00.006-05:00

On Tuesday I saw Gordon McKie – head greenskeeper at St. Andrew’s - give a lecture regarding maintaining the Old Course. Today I'm off to Guelph to speak myself.

The Maintaining of St. Andrew's

The entire complex has 60 full time employees and grows by another 20 in the summer months. They tend to have anywhere from 20 to 25 interns at one time. It takes 19 people 3 hours to mow the entire Old Course in the morning beginning usually in the summer at 5:30am. He pointed out that it takes 6 people 3 hours to mow all the greens by hand. He mentioned that due to the excessively long lines you have to graduate to walking greens on the Old Course. He joked about the fact they have a state of the art 4000 head sprinkler system as “insurance” – but the reality is that almost all watering is done by hand.

For the Turf Heads out there: They only need to core harvest two small areas of the property – and one is the right side of 18 - in that case due to the buildings and winter shade problem. There is no need to amend the rest of the soils since they are pure sand. The course is regularly aerated and occasionally verticut with thatch being a minimal concern. He has been using the hydroject on the greens but also points out that the key still remains the heavy topdressing program – which is still sometimes done by hand!

One of the things they do is a lot of scarifying to remove dead turf in the fairways, followed by topdressing and over-seeding. He pointed out that he over-seeds the greens with a mixture of 50% chewings and 50% slender red fescue 5 times a year hoping to strengthen the diversity over time. He talked about 1% each time + 1% the next time slowly adds up. He regularly over-seeds the fairways with 30% red, 30% chewings, 30% strong creeping red and 10% browntop bent. He told us that the 1st tee and 3rd tee receive 30% perennial rye due to the excessive wear.

There is a feeling at the Trust that the emergence of the metal iron and revetted bunkers occurred together. It is speculated that the new metal iron was the cause of damaged faces and the solution emerged to revett the faces to protect them. It was likely begun with the Hell bunker – since the first revetted bunker found in photo was the Hell bunker. The revetted bunkers tend to last around 4 or 5 years but the south facing ones last as little as two years – a problem we share. There are no burrowing animals on the old course due to a paid rabbit hunter and the aim of keeping everything very firm and dry. When the soils are damp or organic – they tend to get more burrowing.

They are currently experimenting with transplanting sea grass and Marram grass on the top of the bunkers in the rough to limit the drying out that seems to break down the tops. Although most get damaged at the base through play and begin to erode from the bottom up. He hates repairing the old course sod walls with anything but existing turf from on the course since all other sources are too organic and leading to new problems. There is a small nursery hidden between the holes – but it is very small and limits what he can do. The rest are done from a nursery two miles away – which has organics mixed in with the sand. A surprise to me was they also have enormous trouble with the wind relocating the sand on quite a few bunkers.

He stated that the course has not had any fungicide or pesticide applied to it for 17 years and uses cultural practices to maintain that fact. They do use herbicide to deal with weeds only in the fairways – and the greens and tees are “weeded” by hand. Speaking of greens, the speeds are all dictated by play on the 11th with 10 ½ being the maximum they will run the greens due to slope – and we are talking during tournaments too.

They are making changes to the course – but they are subtle and interesting. They have identified areas of gorse that were former areas of heather and have set out a long term program to control or eliminate some areas of gorse. After the 2010 Open they plan a major campaign in this area. More interestingly they have identified a series of bunkers that had rough around them in the past likely due to the complications of maintenance. They have cut the areas down so that a ball will be funneled to or run to these bunkers where the rough kept you out of them. The fairway bunkers on the 5th are now in fairway and the greenside bunkers left of 14 green are now surrounded by short grass and will funnel the ball in. They are looking currently at fairway bunkers on the 14th too.

Gordon summed it up well – he’s the 9th superintendent since Old Tom) - We are here to preserve the course and pass it along the best shape that we can.

Tees Part Four

2008-02-14T18:00:00.002-05:00

In contrast to Lorne and Dick, Kelly Blake Moran wrote the following:

"I agree, the ability to shape a shot from the tee should be based more upon the player's creativity and skill in adjusting grip, stance, swing plane, etc in order to shape the shot, rather than prowling the tee looking for that one spot in the tee where the architect deemed he/she can use to shape their shot. It is another case of dumbing down design in my view."

I underestimated the subject matter entirely - this has been a great discussion.

Undulating Tees Part Three

2008-02-14T11:59:00.004-05:00

Comments from Lorne Rubenstein (used with permission)

"This is a fascinating subject. I'll submit only this comment by the grand old British writer/golfer/architect John Low. He wrote, "Undulation is the soul of golf." Crenshaw is always citing this comment as going to the very heart of the game. I see no reason tees shouldn't undulate. If we're going to encourage pliable, imaginative minds in golf, we need the same in design--tee through green."

He continued in a further email, "I think anything that advances creativity and imagination is healthy. The game is moving in the opposite direction, what with GPS for yardage, mandatory carts (which reduces the likelihood of feeling the ground under one's feet and seeing all around--taking it all in, so to speak), delusional thinking about what equipment can do for a player. I'm far from a Luddite, and I applaud legitimate advances in the game. But I don't think it helps when the emphasis is on, well, minimizing thinking. It's also interesting that most golfers respond to design elements that encourage them to think and feel. Isn't it the same with film, writing, music and art? People can't always say what they like, but they respond when confronted with genuine experience that opens the mind and eyes. There's something in us that wants to be stimulated, to be moved, to feel, to be shocked out of our complacency."

I leave the final comment to another writer who contacted me on the subject, "Is this really the fight you or other architects want to fight - when ideas like shorter holes, width for freedom and central hazards will need to be explained and sold before they become more acceptable?"

To Part 4

Undulating Tees Part 2

2008-02-14T07:51:00.007-05:00

I'm amazed at the discussion this is getting. I've had a so many emails as comments here. There are 11 comments on yesterday's blog.

For definition purposes: An undulating tee is not one where two flat areas are divided by a slope still cut at tee height – an undulating tee is one that offers intentional uneven lies usually in the form of a side-hill lie. Just to make sure we are on the same page.

OK, let’s look at both sides of the argument using a few comments I received.

First, I got this email for Jeff Mingay, “I was speaking with Dick Zokol today, and he asked me if I saw your blog this morning. Zokol says he loves the idea of uneven tees, and that he always looks for uneven spots on tees, created mostly through topdressing and maintenance of course, when playing. He chooses uneven lies depending on the type of ball flight he wants. He says other PGA Tour pros and high-caliber golfers he knows do the same.” (I got his permission to share this – thanks Dick). Dick clearly uses the opportunity of an uneven lie to shape the ball when it suits the situation. Kelly also mentions he does the same in a comment yesterday. So there is a case for good players taking advantage of this situation.

The second comment supporting the idea is from a man who has very strong architectural opinions. He believes that the game needed more variety and more shot-making opportunities. He felt that the use of undulating tees would allow the players a chance to use their imaginations - which touches on the above comments. His idea is that good players should be made to hit from un-even lies since this further identifies the abilities of a great player - which is the idea of a fade lie when a draw is required. I've identified that as an idea to generate pressure - but I'm not sure I like the idea of doing that intentionally with tee slopes.

The last comment came from a superintendent I saw last night and it was all about logistics. He mentioned that if you have uneven tees, you will need to treat the sites like greens to avoid localized drying and wet spots. He saw the need to drain the tees and liekly use non-native soils in most cases except with exceptionally well drained soils. He wondered how much bigger they would need to be to deal with wear since nobody would accept a downhill lie and most people would gravitate to the flat areas. He wondered if the extra maintenance would be worth the few players that would actually embrace the concept. He finally finished up asking me why anyone would want to build this when a vast majority of golfers can’t use the feature.

I think philisophically we should assume that uneven tees be restricted to only the back tees. But that’s not the case in each instance if I understand how it has been used. I had it pointed out to me by a friend that Bill Coore has used the idea at Bandon Trails – and I would love to have a confirmation from someone. I can point to Pete Dye using the idea intentionally at The Pete Dye Golf Club on the short par three – which I can remember the numbering. I would love for the architects to spell out whether it was for pressure, variety, shot-making or opportunity.

I work with quite a few clubs - most of them spending money to level tees (which means a fall in with the natural slope at just over 1%) but none of them have yet spent money to unlevel a tee

To Part 3

Undulating Tees - Don't Make Sense

2008-02-13T08:55:00.008-05:00

from Ron Whitten's photos in his Golf Digest article

I wasn’t going to post today but after shoveling a foot of snow, I wanted a break before starting on some work. So I ended up at Geoff Shackelford’s site http://www.geoffshackelford.com/ which I go to every single day to see what’s new.

On today’s list of articles is a link to Ron Whitten’s review of Chambers Bay.
The link to the article: http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2008/02/gw20080215whitten?currentPage=2

There was one particular part of that article that got me laughing - it was a pitch down the middle of the plate that I could not resist.

“There is hardly a flat spot on the premises, and that includes the tee boxes. In what may be the first truly original design idea of the 21st century, Charlton convinced his colleagues to abandon traditional tee pads in favor of long, skinny, free-flowing ribbons of teeing space. Many are not much wider than walking paths; many are recessed rather than elevated; most are gently contoured with a variety of flats spots just the size of throw rugs. The idea is to pick the lie that might best help shape a shot off the tee: sidehill lies if you wish to fade or draw the ball, a slightly uphill lie if you need help getting airborne, a downhill lie if you want to keep it under the wind, or a flat lie. It's too early to know whether USGA officials will accept those unorthodox teeing areas for the U.S. Open. Jones hopes they will.”

"We'll probably address that after the [2010] U.S. Amateur," he says. "But it's not like there are no flat spots out there. We have dozens of 'batter's boxes' within the undulations. I would hope they'd position the markers far apart and let golfers chose their particular lies. Our goal was to get into the players' minds, even on the tee, and to put some integrity back into tee shots. Don't let them just stick a peg in the ground and bomb it."

from Ron Whitten's photos in his Golf Digest article

For what it’s worth Chambers Bay looks like a great Modern course and is perhaps the rival to Whistling Straights for the Best Modern Style course ever built.

Now what made me laugh was the idea for the tees - which is the worst idea I’ve heard in a long time. Ask any player where they want to tee their ball and they will ALL say on a flat lie. The reason is because that lie is predictable and that is what we practice on – a flat lie. If you need to “work” the ball, like they suggest you might want to, you will make an adjustment to your swing. There’s no way any player will CHOOSE an uneven lie to work the ball since it’s unpredictable – and they never actively practice this.

Here’s the secondary problem of this idea. Let’s say that 50% of the tees are flat and 50% has undulation. Given the choice, as I said before, all players will choose a flat lie. What we end up with is all the wear on the flat sections. If you think putting the tees only on the roll will solve this – go play a public course and watch what happens to the tee markers on a poor section of tee. I digress, essentially assuming the 50-50 ratio we have cut the useable area by not half but by in reality by 60% when you take in account of the lost area around those flat spots. So golfers will choose to go to 40% of the available tee every time. So what we have is a poorly conceived idea that will lead to concentrated wear. If the Jones team thinks golfers will accept this notion of uneven tees they’re kidding themselves. This is not “old school” as suggested but a completely foreign idea that will never be accepted.

I ask you to ask all your friends to see if anyone of them in competition would intentionally tee the ball up on an uneven section of a tee.

To Part 2

What it Takes to Work with a Tour Pro

2008-02-06T08:12:00.000-05:00

Before you jump to conclusions, I am not working with a tour pro, but have a good friend that does. His situation came to mind while writing Monday’s blog.

He now works with a fairly well known and high profile golf professional based in the States. He made the change - jumping from his former employer to the tour pro – after finding himself in a similar situation to what I was talking about yesterday. He was very unhappy where he was and saw little prospect of change, but was also not the type of person to run his own business. Trust me it’s not easy. He made the change and found himself designing holes and courses with input from the professional. He is a very happy guy, but he also found out that his schedule would never been conventional again.

I’ve said many times Coore and Crenshaw are the bar for all architects. How does their particular relationship make them better than all other golf professional / architect relationships? The reason is the knowledge of Ben Crenshaw. He studied and read extensively about golf course architecture long before he entered the design field. He recognized the need to find the right person, and interestingly enough choose a lesser known architect at the time but one with the same the same vision. What makes Coore and Crenshaw work is mutual respect.

While Ben’s time may be limited by other commitments, Bill and Ben make sure they spend as much time as they can look at routings together. They also spend as much time on site as they can together to review all the alternatives knowing that two smart people have more solutions than one person would. While Bill spends the lion’s share of time on site, you can not dismiss Ben’s role in the design.

My friend spends a lot of time working around his pro’s schedule. They are a more conventional office creating working drawings so they meet often to discuss holes and routings. He has met him mostly on site, but also in airports, out at golf tournaments, in the evenings, in hotel conference rooms, wherever there is available time. They both make the effort, after all he is running the day to day design work for him, and the pro is the reason they have the work. They both know and respect each others role. It’s his willingness to get on a plane and meet him where he needs to that often is why their relationship works – particularly since the pro still plays full time.

Are non-golfing celebrity designer's next?

If you are asked to work with a tour professional, you area asked to work within their schedule. The reality of the business is you will need to meet them where they are when they have time. You will need to work where they live to avoid them losing out on family time. You will need to be available any time they have time to go out on site. You will need to occasionally meet them at some far away place where they have time so that they are always part of the process. You may even travel with them to use that time and then get on a plane to return home.

Your role is to educate them on the alternatives, talk about the possibilities for any piece of land and the implications of each design. You are there to open their mind to the possibilities and they are there to share their experience. Between the two of you, you are both there to find the best solution, or at least if you both want to do this right - all within the available time within their schedule.

The Problem Bear

2008-01-29T07:30:00.000-05:00

My final project with Carrick Design was called Muskoka Bay. The golf course was carved out of 250 acres of bush and rock with the golf course is strung out over 11 kilometers. The surveyor laid in centerlines for the holes by clearing a 5 wide meter opening from tee to green. This brought the first bear sighting of the project – from a distance.

The next stage was for Doug Carrick and me to go out and flag out the trees for removal and the trees to be preserved. The tree cutters established paths between holes for access and once again the bear was sighted – on one of the paths. The cutters dropped the trees that were flagged out and the Skidder team followed them in picking up the trees and taking them to the burn piles. After a while the bear found the tree cutters coolers and enjoyed a nice meal. The cutters tied their coolers in the trees, so after a while our frustrated and brazen bear approached the cutters looking for food. Initially they would light up firecrackers to scare the bear away – usually quite effective - but after a few weeks it would not even turn after a firecracker was let off. We now had a problem bear.

The bear took to looking through the parking area for food after finding a meal one day and this caused chaos. When one of the workers was followed right into his truck – everyone was scared – even the tree clearing crew that were used to bears. We all walked in and out of the site from the same location and using the same trails and it unnerved all of us.

At this point one of the site supervisors had enough and took to carrying a shotgun to scare the bear away from the cutters. He wasn’t the only one to carry a gun on the site in the end. The skidder team and cutters worked closer together since the bear didn’t like the skidders – food or no food. The concern became the individuals walking the trails or the site.

Our role throughout was to go out into the areas - to be cleared - where only the centre lines were cut so we could flag the full clearing widths along with all the key trees to keep. For perspective – this was thick bush – we yelled back and forth to see where each of us was using a flash of orange jackets for a quick location. With the bear clearly unafraid of humans, the supervisor thought we needed to carry a gun for our safety. Doug was reluctant and chose to stick with his large can of Pepper Spray.

I had one too but always thought that once the bear was close enough to use effectively use the pepper spray – it was more likely he would be scared of by the smell from you shitting your pants – than the pepper spray. The joke on the site was it was better to walk in pairs with someone you could outrun - or if you were the slow one, the trick was to trip the other guy first and then run away.

Anyway, I carried a shotgun with me for nearly a year – particularly during the times that I was out there by myself when Doug was away or elsewhere on site. There was nothing more upsetting and nerve-racking than the couple of times that I could clearly smell the bear nearby – kind of like extremely foul breath or almost like rotting meat. It was most nervous I have ever been – safety off the gun – and hearing noises everywhere. Imagine your heart beating 100 beats a minute and unable to get reception on your phone – all the while wondering why I chose this line of work.

It would be a perfect ending to say I’m writing this in front of the fire with my feet out on my bear skin rug, but the truth is someone else ended up having to kill the bear as it began to venture into town looking for easy food.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – A Redan green site

2008-01-24T07:29:00.000-05:00

My favorite design concept is the Redan. The player faces a clear choice to hit a perfect cut shot or play a running draw – both will work – and it’s completely up to the player to decide which is appropriate at that moment.

The name Redan comes from the angle of the front bunker and the diagonal it creates, but in today’s context the name Redan describes green contours that fall away from front right to back left. It is most commonly found as a par three based upon the original at North Berwick, but the green itself has also been used very effectively on par fours to create an interesting approach shot.

Strategically the hole is set up by the diagonal line presented by the front left bunker or bunkers. The player must deal with the hazard by either playing over it or around it using the contours of the approach to the green. Where the shot becomes tough is that the land beyond the approach falls sharply off so that playing away from the Redan bunker will lead to much deeper trouble. The recovery shot from the right or long is in fact the hardest on the hole.

The joy of the hole remains the dilemma from the tee or fairway, do you hit a high fade to hold the green, or a slight draw to feed the ball - either way it certainly is a fun hole to play. The key to the hole remains the contour of the green and the fact that it slopes away on the diagonal set up by the bunker. Since there is no backstop or upslope commonly used to receive the ball, judgment and precision are put at a higher premium on the approach shot.

The green itself is one of the most effective ways to reward shot-making and combat the current equipment – but more importantly the concept asks the player to think and choose which always makes for the best architecture the game has to offer.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – A drivable par four

2008-01-23T07:49:00.000-05:00

Take it over the top of the bunkers and go for the green - or play it safe left?

This happens to be my favourite hole type and I will look for one in every routing.

It creates an opportunity for the average player to make a par regardless of their skills or their limited ability to hit the ball long. This is also a hole where smart play and control is often better rewarded than aggressive play and length. The average player plans for a par whereas the strong player tends to set his aim on a birdie. Often the player becomes over aggressive on these holes – producing a foolish bogie or worse through bad judgment.

The joy of the short four is its one of the few holes with multiple options from the tee. It is one of the only opportunities to consider a positional shot as an option knowing that the second shot is from a tougher angle but still with a shorter iron.

The great short fours offer the alternative to attack the hole, usually with the risk increasing as the play becomes more aggressive. The best short fours cloud the judgment of the player, make the green seem so easily attainable and encourage excessive risk taking.

The ideal short par four tempts us even though there is such obvious and smart option right before our eyes. I love a hole where the better player succumbs to their ego and thinks that they can make that shot and reaches for the driver. The key to making a great short four is to properly punish the missed shot on the aggressive line and make recovery a challenge. The hole must also reward the player who plays an exceptional shot with the ideal approach or a line right onto the green surface itself. I believe that if you choose the passive line, you should receive a more difficult approach to justify the reason to pursue the aggressive line. Anything less removes the balance of risk and reward that creates the tough decision on the tee. If you’ve built them right, the players will clearly understand the difficulty, see the safe option but be enticed to want to take the risk.

Building a “Good” Low cost course

2008-01-17T08:23:00.000-05:00

In one of the series I got asked the following question by Yannick, “How does that fit in with making golf affordable, when you consider the extra maintenance of the steep faces and the extra irrigation heads this requires?” This was followed up by Henry with, “YP brings up a good point, except that bunker maintenance can be limited by the # of bunkers employed on a course. As for the cost of maintaining short grass vs. rough - is there a substantial difference."

I’ll answer this by telling you how I would build a good low cost public facility. First off I would not move any earth except for greens, tees and bunkers to keep the costs to a minimum – regardless of site. I would also simplify the bunkering down to deeper pot style bunkers done with steep sod banks (no sand faces). I would use collecting slopes of short grass to feed the ball into these bunkers to make them play bigger. I would limit myself to around 30 bunkers using impact of the Road Hole bunker as inspiration. My feeling has always been less bunkering better placed makes a better golf course.

I would look for undulation in the landing areas to add difficulty and reduce the need for bunkering. I will still keep the width in the fairways and likely consider dwarf bluegrass to keep maintenance costs down. I would still surround much of the greens with short grass for playability, interest and difficulty but consider using bent grass to get the playing conditions needed. The greens would be slightly smaller and elevated like Pinehurst #2 - although less rolling of course. They would mostly slope sharply forward but occasionally they will slope moderately away in the other three directions when appropriate.

The course would max out under 7,000 yards – excessive distance is a budget killer for construction, through to maintenance and finally to the speed of play. We build far too many tees and would limit myself to only three sets of tees - like what was done at Ballantrae. In the right situation I would drop cart paths entirely, or at least limit them to green to tee. Areas that are not in play would be seeded to fescue and I would limit the watering system down to double row and allow external areas to brown out during the drier years. Essentially pull away some of the bells and whistles that can be done without on a mid-tier public course.

I would also limit the amount of water as much as possible and not build any artificial features to the course. The model becomes Donald Ross from green sites through to simple solid strategies.

Not every idea in the series is appropriate for every situation – although I think most will find some place within my work.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – Lots of Short Grass around Greens

2008-01-16T07:57:00.000-05:00

Nothing beats the value of short grass, often more dangerous than a bunker.

Short grass around greens is undoubtedly the greatest equalizer in golf.

Bluegrass surrounding a green offers only one type of recovery — the flop shot — a favorite of good players. For the good players a ring of bluegrass is also helpful since it contains a narrowly missed approach from getting too far from the green. However, if the green surrounds are closely mown, that same near miss often gets propelled away from the green leaving a difficult recovery. Players know with short grass that should they get too aggressive, they may par dearly if they miss their approach.

The average player struggle with green side bunkers because of their limited skills and will even play extra shots to avoid them. Strong players will often play to a green side bunker knowing that the lie will be excellent and they have the skill to get up and down – which has reduced the strategic value of many bunkers. So how do we challenge the better players more and not affect the average guy who already struggles with the game

The answer is more short grass around the greens. The average player will always play the shot that suits their strengths. A good putter will putt from off the green and a good chipper will play a bump and run. The fun begins when a player has the ability to hit multiple types of recovery shots well - now they will have to make a decision.

The good player must decide whether to putt, bump and run, or to attempt a flop shot. Options present opportunities, but also lead to mistakes. The US Open at Pinehurst showed the difficulty created by short grass around greens. The flop will result in more hole outs, but conversely brings a greater risk of hitting fat or thin due to the tightness of the lie. That is why even the greatest players find themselves still in off the green occasionally after a poorly executed chip.

One of the joys of using grass slopes around greens is that water from the green can spill out onto the chipping areas allowing for much more intricate contouring of the green surface. With bunkering you must keep the water away and it does tend to limit the green contour – particularly when a green is heavily bunkered. When you throw in the cost to make and maintain a bunker versus a nice slope of short grass – it makes you wonder why so many greens are so heavily bunkered.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – Fairway Width with Bunkering inside the fairway lines

2008-01-15T07:49:00.000-05:00

The bunkering is brought into the fairway to develop the strategy - the fairways remain wide for playability

This is a natural progression from yesterday’s blog. As I mentioned in yesterdays my goal is to make players think. A second goal I have stated quite a few times is to ensure enjoyment and playability for the average player. Most would suggest that there is an obvious contradiction, but in fact that is not the case. You can have your cake and eat it to with a couple of very carefully selected methods. One is the extensive use of short grass around greens and the other is wide fairways with interior bunkering.

Immediately you will question how I can employ fairway width and maintain the challenge and this is where the interior bunkering is crucial to my design strategy. Modern architecture tends to keep everything out to the sides whether to flank a target or create carry angles. As players got better, fairways have been narrowed and the bunkering has continued to pinch the landing areas. The improvement in the skills of the elite has not been matched by the average player, yet we’ve toughened up the courses with the evolution of modern design. This is a well and good if you are a skilled player, but where is the playability for the average guy – the majority of players I might add – when they can’t hit these narrow targets.

Throw in the situation of bad weather or high winds and the course can become close to impossible for the average player. Yet the answer is so obvious – give the average player back their width and draw the bunkering into the fairways. The target areas for a strong player remain between the bunkering. The playing area for the average player remains the width of the landing with them either playing away from the interior bunker or playing intentionally short. Although the reality is often they just swing away because they have no true idea of direction but they know intuitively that the odds of actually finding one of the bunkers is slim.

The interior bunker tightens the landing area without taking away the total playing width. It provides all the essential strategies and decisions for a good player, all while leaving the average player lots of room and confidence that they can get around and likely never lose a ball on that hole – which matters a great deal to their psychology and enjoyment of the game.

Since I believe in width, particularly when public play is involved, the use of interior bunkering will ensure that I can have both challenge and playability.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – The Central Bunker

2008-01-14T07:25:00.000-05:00

Do you attack the bunker or play short and safe?

A bunker placed in the centre of a landing area may be considered controversial by modern golf architecture despite the fact that is one of the greatest ways to develop a clear and concise choice for a good player to make. If the hazard sits somewhere between 250 and 290 yards from the tee and is near the centre of the hole, it sits exactly where a good player wants to play to.

Modern players try not to work the ball but to hit to general areas. They have so much confidence in their ability to execute shots that they play a positional game. They often simply hit different club to remove risk, in fact removing risk and execution has become the trademark of recent professional play. You can easily see why and elite player will be fully frustrated by a central bunker since it will sit exactly where they want to be. They like to hit a driver like to take advantage of their length. Smart play leaves a tougher approach, whereas a driver will have to flirt with this hazard – which they already think is “ridiculous.” Just look at the comments on the central bunker at TPC of Boston from last year.

They will have to make a choice to flirt or lay-up – both choices bother them – and that is the sign of good architecture since they are forced to choose (and to think!). Too many golf courses don’t make the players make a choice, they simply say this is where to hit the ball, here is the punishment for missing, now hit the shot. This central hazard has none of that simplicity – which good players like - it says here are all your options, here is a hazard exactly where you want to go, now make the best decision before hitting the shot. The wonderful extra bit of psychology involved in this hazard is that a good player is annoyed by an element that is “not fair” in their mindset which is a poor mindset to hit a good shot. Throw in a stubborn players insistence in hitting a driver regardless and you have all the elements for making bad decisions and posting a poor score through.

I believe it is my role to make the player think as much as it is my role to challenge their skills. Remember as Pete Dye said, “Once you get those dudes thinking, their in trouble.”
The funny part is they can do what they want to avoid the bunker entirely – like the average player will - but they are easily sucked in by ego involved in this situation. The fun part on the other side of the equation is the weaker player most often can’t get there so they use it as a target. If they can get there, they still take dead aim counting on the fact that the ball almost never flies straight so they will finish either left or right anyway.

The ideal central hazards are actually slightly off centre with a tighter and tougher side leading to an ideal angle of approach. The other wider side is an easier play but leads to a tougher approach angle. The Principle’s Nose at St. Andrew’s remains the best example in golf and the inspiration for this lies squarely on that feature. What is also important is to have something – trees, out of bounds, or other severe hazards on the narrow side to emphasize the risk of playing to the best place. The other side should have lots of extra space out wide to allow an easier play and thereby reinforce the strategic decision to be made.

Scarboro Article in the Globe & Mail

2008-01-11T23:20:00.000-05:00

The course, in Toronto's Scarborough suburb, is undergoing a $1.2-million renovation to bring back many of the original Tillinghast features. Bunkers, for example, have been deepened and brought in tighter to the greens. Some trees have been removed, and chipping areas and feeder slopes around the greens have been restored.

The architects hired for the project, restoration specialist Ian Andrew of Brantford, Ont., and Tillinghast expert Gil Hanse of the United States, have also added some fairway bunkers that were part of the original drawings but never built. Renovations are to be completed by June 1.

Article on Scarboro Golf & Country Club is here:
http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080111.wspt-golf-cnopen-11/GSStory/GlobeSportsGolf/home

CuttenClub : Before - Concept - Actual

2008-01-11T07:24:00.000-05:00

The 3rd Hole

The hole before the work

The concept for the hole - there was an irrigation line where the left bunker was supposed to go

The hole taken yesterday with the fairway added back in

The 7th Hole

The 7th hole before

The concept for the hole with the bunkering returned

The 7th hole right now with the new bunkering

Other Photos

The new back tee on the 5th

The 18th green

The 9th before

The 9th done, but a little hard to see

The 1st hole from the ladies tee

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – Lots of Lateral Movement

2008-01-09T08:15:00.000-05:00

I happen to love "z" shaped holes and the strategic possibilities

One of the first chances I ever had to put a proposal in for a new golf course was on a flat property with no trees. The last one at Grand Bend was also for a mostly flat site. While most architectural ideas revolve around some terrain and architect must have ideas on how to building a hole on a flat site with little or no natural features or their no use to any developer, since very few properties are without a flatter section.

The solution is scale. Think about it this way, if you have a wide open space with panoramic views, your canvas has just increased dramatically. If you are going to fill the canvas with your composition it also must be on a larger scale to fit the setting. The way to do this is exaggerate the architectural technique that you are using for that project. The bunkering becomes the key to these sites since it must be on a very large scale to make it stand out from the surroundings.

The fairways have to also venture much further from side to side and need to swing another 50% (or more) than they normally do to help fill up that empty space. The advantage of this technique is that the natural swing create an even better risk and reward scenarios by extending the carry angles and strategies. The reward for gambling is still the best angle, but the penalty for playing away involves and even tougher angle than normal since your so much further off line.

One advantage I see with having holes out in the open is the wind. Holes in the open bring the wind more into play making them a larger part of the game. This is why the fairways themselves need to be a bit wider to accommodate the winder days. That also creates more opportunity to play positional shots. The wider fairways along with bigger bunkers help fill the large open space because of the scale of the architecture and therefore fit the setting better than a conventional sized hole.

This type of hole blends naturally into the land around needing only some low native vegetation to separate the holes. The alternative and more common approach to add mounding down each side for definition never blends and never looks natural. That’s what I have proposed to deal with each of the wide open and flat sites the way I have.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – Deep Bunkering

2008-01-08T07:58:00.001-05:00

I’m a big believer in bunkering being the best of the strategic hazards. I like the fact that a player has the opportunity to hit a recovery out of a bunker shot and save a stroke or conversely could get too aggressive and leave the ball in more than once and compound their own problems. I like the fact that the recovery requires skill and judgment – no other hazard does this quite as well.

I’ve never been a fan of hazards like out of bounds and water (although I like creeks) where the loss is stroke and distance giving the player a two shot penalty. Other architects believe that water hazards are required to place additional pressure on the player. Well, the same can be said for an exceptionally deep tough bunker, but the difference is that the player may still recover from that hazard and on occasion may not even lose a stroke through truly exceptional play.

For strategy to be meaningful, the bunkering must have enough depth to punish the player a shot to par unless they manage through great skill to save that shot.

Great bunkering not only defends and defines the lines of play but it also supplies the psychological pressure of knowing what your fate will be if you miss the shot. The recovery shot required to extricate you from a bunker is what defines the punishment you will face, which in turn defines the value of the hazard. If the bunker is very deep, and the possibility exists of losing more than one shot, a player will play away to lessen the risk. If the bunker defends the ideal place to be and must be flirted with to gain the ideal position then that same deep bunker has great strategic value.

If the player always wants to flirt with the bunker until he eventually hits it in, only to find that he immediately plays well away the next round, only to begin to flirt closer and closer until he hits it in once more - then you have a perfect bunker.

You see there is nothing more thrilling or appealing than skirting over an impressive or fearsome hazard, but it’s only a thrill when you know the certain disaster that you just avoided. The only way to create that scenario – to have meaningful hazards – is with bunker depth.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? – Alternate Route to the Green

2008-01-07T07:37:00.000-05:00

The format for this week – and hopefully each week going forward is - three posts on what a new Ian Andrew Golf Course will look like followed by a written blog about another subject.

I’m a big believer in creating playing freedom. The freedoms to try new routes, test your skill, or keep as far away from trouble as you need to. I think to make a course exciting you should be given the choice to roll the bones – as Max Behr said - and take on enormous risk if you so desire. I still think conceptually no course quite matches the playing freedoms and opportunities of the Old Course – play to safer areas – or challenge the hazards to attack the course.

While centerline bunkering or interior bunkering is ideal in this task – and I will touch on both this subjects in coming weeks – separate fairways have never appealed to me. I have only found one hole with two separate fairways where the choice between two fairways is tough to make. The best of the bunch is the 15th at World Woods where long hitters are enticed to give it a go – and short hitters tend to play safe. It’s most fun if you’re right in between! Too many split fairways are complete disasters including ones created by some of the better known architects of yesterday or today.

The bottle hole created by CB MacDonald offers the perfect solution. A player can play either left of right of the bunkering running up the centre of the hole on a diagonal to play. I have illustrated what I feel is the ideal hole with alternate routes. You can play left and safe to a wider fairway and without a carry off the tee – or you can play right requiring a carry and the need to thread the needle in order to find a landing area. You shorten the hole and gain a distinct strategic advantage into the green for your efforts.

This would make a great example of what I would be trying to accomplish with a mid-range par four. A safer tee shot followed by a tougher longer approach or a very demanding tee shot followed by a simple flip right into the heart of the green. This I feel is a fun hole to play – do you risk or play smart – both options are compelling depending on how you are playing.

One additional note – the bunkering must be deep enough to make a recovery shot to the green very tough – or the strategies begin to become meaningless.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? - An All or Nothing Par 3

2008-01-03T00:12:00.000-05:00

One swing to glory....or disaster

There will be no rhyme or reason to the subjects that I choose, and I’m sure that may make the series more fun for you and me. I have six images drawn currently and each is on random subjects, which confirms that the series will be all over the map as I go. One thing I that I know for sure is that I will have an “all or nothing”par three on every course I build.

There is no hole that is more anticipated in a round than a short par three. It provides all players with a realistic opportunity to make a birdie with one great swing. Even the weakest or shortest of player can look at the short par three knowing that only well placed shot will bring a certain birdie or at least a good chance. That’s the reason that the short par three is everyone’s favourite hole to play.

My short holes will generally be the “all or nothing” type. I still will create others like the Big Baby at Jasper where short grass is the key element but most will likely involve a ring of sand like the 10th at Pine Valley. I prefer the idea of a plateau green site or a carry over a great natural feature like a ravine to define the difficulty. One thing for sure is I will never build an island like the 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass and in fact you’ll likely find that my holes in general will try to avoid the all or nothing carry over water.

I believe that the Postage Stamp is a perfect hole. The second shot may be the hardest shot on the course, which most players find out after they miss! What I like about the Postage Stamp is if you miss there is still a possible par through a great recovery shot. I believe that the recovery shot is one of the most important parts of the game and the one shot that separates the great player from the good player.

As an architect the short three represents our greatest opportunity. While I may embrace the idea of width and playability as a generality, this is the opportunity to ratchet up the difficulty and tell the player to bring their very best. After all, the hole is short and the player begins on a perfect lie. There is so much opportunity to for the player to make a good score, therefore there must be equal risk or danger to keep the situation in balance. The short three is a chance to really ramp up the architecture, to push the envelope, to make a statement, to do something spectacular. I believe that the short par three should be the most memorable hole on the property, whether from selecting the ideal location on the site, or from some exceptional architecture used to place a premium. Even on a limited budget or poor site, this remains possible since the all you need to build is a clever green site. There are so many examples of great ones even built on nothing sites.

What Might an Ian Andrew Course Have? - Highly Contoured Greens

2008-01-02T09:10:00.000-05:00

Not my best image, but one that shows rolls through a green creating compartments.

The question I get most is, what will an Ian Andrew Golf Course look like? My initial answer is that depends on the site because everything from the routing technique through to the architectural style will come as a response to the site. Golf course routings depend on everything from contour to soil type to wind to vegetation. When you throw in the different possibilities of public through to private from resort through to tournament play and each delivers some different conditions on what should be thought about.

I’ve decided to produce a series of sketches to explain what an Ian Andrew Golf Course will look like. Each day that I post will feature an image that will be used to explain the ideas that are likely to be consistent through my design style. Nothing is written in stone and a new course on a flat site may bring highly contoured greens where an extremely wild site may reduce the contour is response to the severity of other features. As I said before a good design must responds to the site rather than impose itself.

The first thing you will notice about all my original work will be the greens. I do not believe in flat greens and in fact I think that interesting green contours are one of the consistent qualities of the great courses. There are a few exceptions on great sites with lots of drama, but the courses on average sites all have one thing in common – interesting and complicated green contours.

In a day and age where many of the best known designers continue to push courses back looking for excessive length, they have forgotten that green contour is the great equalizer in the game. A more complicated green surface requires a player be more careful about position off the tee in order to access very complicated pin areas.

If you have more contour, not only do they now have to avoid certain positions or risk a three putt, but a miss around the green can be further complicated by getting on the wrong side of a feature like a prominent roll. The key to defense, the key to the pleasure of the game is found in the small contours, not in the big ones.

The Year in Review – Part 5 - My Business

2007-12-07T06:50:00.000-05:00

No New Course

Wednesday night I learned that the new course I had been pursuing had been awarded to a golf contractor as a design/build contract.

I had been in talks with a development group about a new course to be built next spring near Grand Bend, Ontario, as part of a housing development. Most of the site was as flat and wide open and this would have taken some effort to make interesting. I had decided to use an approach based around Mike Strantz’s Shore Course at Monterey Peninsula, California. The idea was to use expansive bunkers and large lateral movement to fill the wide open space. I was going to lift the fairways, tees and greens to make them standout and avoid the use of containment mounds.

The developers had approached me for a proposal on the project, in spite of the fact that they had acquired a design from a golf contractor they had been working with. The contractor has surprisingly suggested that my involvement was unethical since he had used a golf designer to do the routing. I find this a curious allegation, since nothing on the plans shows his name. If they did - I would not have agreed to become involved.

The Renovation Business

The strength of my business will always be with my renovation and restoration work. This year was a banner year from the start through to the finish. It began with five new Master Plans, moved onto working drawings in the summer and final three major renovations in the fall. August brought the start of a Stanley Thompson renovation to the Cutten Club using the old aerial as a guide – it was fun to work with the flashes and high faces. September brought a restorative-based project of re-establishing the grass face bunkers that A.W. Tillinghast had created at Scarboro. It was fun to work with Gil Hanse on this project and interesting to work with full grass faces. October brought the start of a Walter Travis renovation where once again I was building grass faced bunkers but this time with really small shape mounding complexes around the fairway bunkering. Having to continuously change between styles proved to be exhilarating.

This spring will see me a quick finish to Scarboro’s bunkers. The Travis work will continue through the spring and re-start with some greens this fall. The fall will bring at least one Thompson renovation with the possibilities of a second Thompson course or a new Travis bunker renovation. I’m not too worried about next year – I’m quite certain that I will have enough to do – if not I will enjoy some golf.

Nine New Holes at Saskatoon

The coming year will be an important year for me and Saskatoon Golf & Country Club. I am quite certain that this project will be the key to showing people that I am more than capable on my own – and will eventually lead to that new 18 holes.

The work has quietly started this fall with some clearing and drainage being done while the weather co-operates. I’m certain about the plan and the design for the holes and now its time to build them. While the work will be done in the style of Bill Kinnear (at Saskatoon) I will still be building holes that fit comfortably within my own preferences in design. I have managed to avoid almost everything on my expanded list of 20 things that I don’t like and there is not a single containment mound or target bunker to be found!

In The Works

This fall featured three of the most interesting calls that I have received so far. I will say that a significant Thompson course has approached me about a major restoration in a few years time. I’ve also talked to clubs about courses ranging from Ross to Alison to Travis. I was even recommended for a Raynor project by a peer that I admire.

It was a fascinating year for sure.

The Year in Review – Part Four – The Blog

2007-12-06T07:50:00.000-05:00

The Highlights

In January I also posted the culmination of 10 people’s research and produced an accurate list of Stanley Thompson designed courses. I had been frustrated by the lack of commitment from the Stanley Thompson Society to research and produce a definitive list. I always felt that this should be their primary role as a society. While I don’t think the list is “the definitive” list – it was produced with as a massive research file full of notations – and I hope others will pick up from here and help make the list more accurate.

The next highlight wasn’t about architecture. I had been to the RCGA’s conference on Player Development and managed to mistakenly end up at a meeting concerning the Future Links Program (my real interest any way). From some frustrations on listening to how things were being handled I decided that I needed to write about “Growing the Game” – particularly since nobody else seemed to want to. I touched on every program that I could find and then provided commentary on them – being the parent of a junior who was new to the game – I knew the frustrations in getting him involved and engaged in the sport. While some individual programs are great – I think unless the groups can come together – none of this will make much difference.

The First Low Point

In the spring I began to get increasingly busy and went through a period where the writing my writing became very erratic. This was the first time I thought about packing it in. There are a couple of gems that represent everything that I’m about. The first is a piece called “Spirit of Freedom” that describes the birth of my philosophy on how courses should play – based upon the writings of Max Behr. The other is the article called “Should bunkers be inside the fairway lines” which gives a great indication on where I’m heading with my own designs – particularly if they are public facilities.

The Best Series of All

I produced a lot of marginal articles for a while trying to write without a theme till finally I settled on an idea that really put me back on track – I decided to tackle the history of golf course architecture. I decided that if someone was going to follow all these ideas about architecture – they really needed to know how all the ideas came about, who were the key architects along the way and how did we get to where we are now.
It became the perfect set up for something that I wanted to do before – but was afraid to do – the top 25 architects of history. I thought I would be roundly chastised on sites like GolfClubAtlas for having the gall to do this. I thought people would question my qualifications and choices to the point that I would be roundly criticized and regret taking it on. The series was exceptionally well received and I think people took it in the spirit of exploring all the different architects rather than quibbling over who’s where on the list. It represents the best work done on the blog to date.

Stuck in a Rut

After that the blog went into the toilet. I was tired from traveling, working long hours and worse I had nothing that I wanted to write about. Since I lacked spare time almost every blog was written too quickly to have any lasting value. In hindsight, I should have stopped writing after the Top 25. The only highlight in the middle of this was the short lived experiments with video. I presented the holes of Saskatoon where I explained what I was trying to do through hand-drawn plans and an off camera description.

Trying to Get Back on Track

The most recent series was a logical one for me – I had spent most of the time explaining what I like and what influenced these ideas – so why not explain what I don’t like. When I go see courses – including my own work – I review what I like and why and what I don’t think works and why. I keep all these ideas stored and try to use both sides to help me make the best choices in my own work. So I presented the ideas that I don’t care for as a series to change things up. I’ve never had more comments than I did from that series – I think it’s easier for people to understand what they don’t like about a hole or a course than it is to understand why something works – so it’s easier to relate. I was tickled that I had a number of architects agree or point out how many of my list they had on the last project – all for fun. As I said at the onset – this is what “I” don’t like – which has nothing to do with whether an idea is good or bad.

The Future

The next series will represent what I want to build – I have often referred to it as my design book - using sketches, water colours (if I can find the guts to paint again after 20 years), computer illustrations, real examples and a clear written intent. I plan to take my writings – combine them with the images – so that what I want to do is not only concise but clearly illustrated too.

I’m also considering following in the footsteps of other architects and look at my own 10 laws or another similar intellectual exercise to define what I think and feel about architecture. I want to take the last two years of writings and take everything up a notch this winter.

The Final Series

I still – for now - intend to stick with this blog until I finally build my first “solo” course. The idea is to walk you through from getting the project, to design concepts, working drawings, construction in the field through to opening day. You’ll get an initial taste of that this summer with Saskatoon where I will walk you through the holes as they develop.

The Year in Review – Part Three - Architecture

2007-12-05T07:54:00.000-05:00

Are We Going to End up with a Minimalist Overload ???

Yesterday we found out Sebonack was named the Best New Private course in America. The course was a collaboration between Jack Nicklaus and Tom Doak – whose styles couldn’t have been farther apart. The work is excellent – even if the working conditions were strained – and the award was well deserved. The strain has continued beyond the project with Jack making inflammatory statements where he suggests he supplied the strategy and Tom supplied the look (a funny comment since Tom routed the course). If you were to actually believe Jack – then he just built his first course in the so-called Minimalist style.

When you continue down the same list you come to another Minimalist looking layout called Pronghorn. This time the architect is Tom Fazio – or at least one of his lead associates – and the work is quite striking and beautiful. It certainly was well chosen for the site except for the creeks that seem painfully out of place. It represents a clear attempt by a big named architect to work in the style popularized by Doak, and Coore - to show they he too can work in the same style.

A more obvious example was Erin Hills where Hurdzan Fry brought along Ron Whitten as a co-designer and set out to build their own Minimalist Masterpiece. Hurdzan Fry has always been a company that follows the trends of architecture and this time they even used one of Coore’s key shapers - Rod Whitman (who shaped at Friars Head) – and set out to create a course in the same style.

The latest one is Chambers Bay by Robert Trent Jones Jr. They may have broken the Minimalist mold by having to move large amounts of dirt – but there is no question that the details oand the look of the architecture is based squarely on the work by Coore and Doak

It used to be every architects web site claimesd they work with the land - now they claim they can work in that style. Everyone has been swept up by this trend – which is good for golf – but tough on the people who really are Minimalists. Once a style becomes this popular – the smaller architects (like me) are almost forced to find a different look in order to set themselves apart from the bigger more marketable names. It doesn't mean abondoning your principles - just creating architecture that looks different from the rest.

Ones to Watch for Next Year

Castlestuart

Designed by Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner have crafted with some of the more creative and innovative bunkering I have seen borrowing from the old Hutchison book to create bunkers that are literally sod walls with sections caving in. The views are also out of this world.

Old MacDonald

Tom Doak and Jim Urbina are in the middle of creating a new course at Bandon Dunes built using the MacDonald template holes. I could not think of a better exercise for these brilliant designers to really show their creativity. Throw in George Bahto and Brad Klien and you have a course with high expectations.

Funny enough two courses that will not look like the ones I've mentioned above.

Muskoka Bay is Best New Canadian Course

2007-12-04T12:43:00.000-05:00

The 3rd from the air (courtesy of Golf Digest)

Golf Digest just released their annual awards and Muskoka Bay was named the Best New Course in Canada. It was much appreciated to get a mention in the article - since I was very involved in the project. That project was the reason that I stayed two more years than I had planned.

You can find the article here:
http://www.golfdigest.com/rankings/courses/new/2008/bestnewcanadian

The Year in Review – Part Two – The Newsmakers in Canada

2007-12-04T07:28:00.000-05:00

Executive Director Stephen Ross is Out

“The decision was made following a recent meeting with members of the RCGA’s Executive Committee, after which it was recommended by the Committee and mutually agreed upon by Ross that he steps down as Executive Director.”

Stephen Ross didn’t agree to go – in reality – he was told to resign. The RCGA was under pressure from recent scrutiny from the golf media – probably brought on by Robert Thompson’s expose in Score. The National Golf Course Owners couldn’t work with him and other organizations expressed difficulties in dealing with the RCGA under his watch. Stephen was also struggling to find a replacement for Bell and the financial pressure was probably the straw that broke the camels back. The RCGA had to make a change – even if Stephen wasn’t totally at blame – that perception would always be that he was.

The New Executive Director - Scott Simmons

Some thought his appointment was a disappointment since the association was hiring an insider with clear links to the previous administration of Stephen Ross. They point to the fact that Scott still has not cleaned house and things still run as they always have – despite the lack of a sponsor. Others counter that his inside knowledge of the RCGA is an asset and we must give him time to make change after he fully reviews the organization. Bob Weeks went so far as to mention that Scott was not happy with the way things were and will make change.

Found a Sponsor

“Oakville, Ont. (RCGA) – The Royal Canadian Golf Association (RCGA) announced on November 1st, 2007 that RBC has agreed to a sponsorship agreement to become title sponsor of the PGA Tour’s Canadian Open through 2012. Financial details and terms of the partnership were not disclosed.”

They finally found the sponsor – so now will the organization change? The biggest question I would like to ask them is why they are in the business of elite level player development and barely involved with grass root development – which in my opinion has a far greater value for the future of the game.

Mike Weir Moves into Architecture

The biggest architectural news this year was Mike Weir’s decision to finally get into designing golf courses. You must admire Mike’s choice to not rush to cash in on his fame and take money while other architect are doing all the work behind the scenes. Mike has clearly articulated a different vision based upon Coore and Crenshaw. He plans to only build one or two project to ensure quality and build a team around himself in the same manner. The question now is who will play Coore to his Crenshaw.

Lorne Rubenstein enters the Hall of Fame

On Wednesday June 22nd Lorne Rubenstein went into the Canadian Golf Hall of Fame. It was a great day for anyone who loves the game. The Hall of Fame has lots of great players but too few people that have “only” developed the game. Lorne is someone who has spent a lifetime educating us about the subtle nuances of golf. He’s inspired us to love the game through his writings on the spiritual parts of golf. He reminds us that the game is as much about bonds of friendship and small moments as it is about a key putt in a tournament. It was good day for golf – full of friends and family - just like the game.

Best Article – A Matter of Race

I live it here because Canada’s generally liberal views – I’m originally English if you didn’t know - but open racism is still not that long gone in Canada. Just ask any older member of a Jewish Club when they finally felt they were no longer excluded from the mainstream of golf and you will be shocked. Bill McWilliam talks about all the black musicians that loved to come to Toronto because of the more liberal views on race – yet racism still practiced at most private clubs. Golf is still elitist even today – whether financial, by gender inequality, by religious values, colour of your skin. Golf still is not a fully accessible sport – even though many like me would like to think it is.

Curtis Gillespie – in May’s Score magazine – took a very direct look at the racial issues in golf. It pointed out the lack of inclusion still prominent in the game. Look at the key positions at most clubs – from golf pros, to architects, to golf superintendents, to clubhouse managers - they are generally all white and male. This game has a long way to go – and if we truly want to grow the game – since minorities are key to the future of golf.

The Geoff Shackelford.com Award – Going for the Green

You may not like him - you may disagree with his opinions – but Robert Thompson’s Going for the Green has emerged as one of the best places to find out what is going on in Canadian golf. He is very strongly opinionated, insightful, well connected and very well read – and he makes for an entertaining read on most days. He has become a lightening rod for controvesy - since he often refuses to pull his punches. He reminds me of Howard Stern – where those who like him read him when they can – and those who dislike him read him every day to find out what he said next.

Best Architectural Quote I read all year – Robert Thompson

“I called it “inoffensive architecture,” a term aimed at describing a course where the architect has taken so few risks that really there’s nothing wrong with it, but there’s also not a single factor that distinguishes it.”

and one from the home of golf...

“But Councillor Alastair Ross said the council must play “hardball” with the Trump Organisation and refuse the application.“It is an economic investment – it is property speculation,” he said.“We are open for business but we have to do business that is good for Aberdeenshire – not at any price.”

The Donald was pushing hard to build a massive housing development – oh and a links course with waterfalls. He even went as far as to drop Tommy Fazio II and reduce the waterfall quotient to bring in Martin Hawtree to save the day - but he could never hide the fact that this was an aggressive land development project. So the canny Scot’s told him to go get stuffed.

The Year in Review – Part One - Professional Golf

2007-12-03T07:26:00.000-05:00

I’ve decide to do my Year in Review now – I'm looking at 6" of snow followed by this morning's freezing rain – my year is over. It seems like a great day to look back at what happened this year. I’m going to follow last year’s format and write on the same five areas – professional golf, the newsmakers, architecture, my blog and my business. I will post all week - I hope you enjoy my review.

2007 in Professional Golf

Player of the Year - Tiger Woods
Only won major – but seven wins was very impressive all the same. Throw in the Fedex Cup his refusal to play all four Fedex events before winning it anyway and you have another dominate year – including over the commissioner.

To the commissioner in China: “Could I ask a quick follow-up; could you ever envision today where because of this Tiger Woods would be a member of The European Tour and would you welcome that?”
Tim Finchem: “I've learned after 11 years to let Tiger speak for himself.”

....and to let him do whatever he wants to do.

You'd Think they'd Learn
Rory Sabbatini couldn’t learn from Steven Ames could he? He had to go and call Tiger out saying "He struggled out there. He had to battle for that win. And I think that made me realize, you know, he is, I'd say, as beatable as ever." – the newly focused Tiger went out and dominated finishing the year with five straight wins.

Fed Ex Cup
Everyone who got the scoring put your hands up – anyone, anyone – and therein lies the problem. They promoted the series so much and yet created a scoring system that nobody was able to follow without TV’s help. It was all done to get the players to play more fall events – yet the players still won’t play all the events. Lucky for Finchem that Woods won and that he and Lefty ended up head to head – imagine if they were out of it by the last event – who would watch? They’ll try again next year – but look out if Woods and Michealson both don’t contend!

Highlight of the Year
Mike Weir beating Tiger at The President’s Cup was the biggest event of the year. Not only because Mike beat him head to head, but it was the way he came back down the stretch. Canada celebrated the only thing that actually mattered to us at the President’s Cup. I think American won – but to be honest I’m not sure. If only the winner of this event qualified for the Ryder Cup – then it would mean something!

Highlight by a Non-Canadian in Supporting Role - Woody Austin
When Woody Austin donned the snorkel on the 14th at the Presidents Cup – we all admired a man for having a sense of humour in the middle of intense pressure. Not only was he not taking himself too seriously but he also showed the American’s the way they need to be in order to finally win the Ryder Cup.

First Runner-up - Woody Austin
Austins suprising fall into the lake at The President's Cup was followed by a stunning run of three birdies after. The fall into the lake was funny and he handled it well - if you weren’t a fan of this guy before – it was real easy to be after that.

Lowlight
Looking at the greens at East Lake GC – a course not meant to played at tournament condition in the September heat – but they tried. They had to because of the change in dates done to suit Finchem’s Fedex Cup (the worst idea of the year).

Tournament of the Year – The Open
The British Open was by far the highlight of the year. I’ll never forget the made for television moment when Padraig and Sergio crossed the same bridge on #17 in different directions. That was epic – too bad Sergio would not make eye contact – but that really didn’t matter. While the golf was far from perfect – I can’t remember a more compelling finish to a major. The rollercoaster of emotion from Padraig’s double bogey through to Sergio lost opportunity when he missed such a make able putt.

Hole of the Year – 18th at Carnoustie
How could it not go to the 18th at Carnoustie with the entire calamity of both players – and the history Jean Van De Velde. There is not a tougher finishing hole in all of tournament golf – and what an impact it had on the outcome!

Tournament Course of the Year– Southern Hills
I loved the way Kieth Foster handled the changes to the course. The 9th and 18th greens were moved but you could not tell. All the chipping areas meant avoiding a major renovation while toughening up the place - other should take note on how it's done.

Quote of the Year from a PGA Player– Boo Weekly

"I don't know nothing about the FedEx Cup, I never was good at math."

I think Boo should also have the last word on the year too....

"It's been a windwhirl."

Restoration - Part 3 – Is everything by a famous architect worthy of restoration?

2007-11-29T07:42:00.000-05:00

The 3rd at St. George's - the most out of character green on a great course that I know.

Tom Doak – known for his excellent restoration work – said that not everything should be restored. There are cynics that suggest the restoration movement is just a “fad” and will eventually come to the logical end called “progress.” Others argue that this so called “progress” was previously known as “modernization” and it was the source of so much architectural malpractice that it drove clubs to restoration since the work of the older architects was so clearly better than the renovations of the newer architects.

I think when you area dealing with the work of one of the greatest architects of history – you have an obligation to try and preserve most of their work for future generations to learn from and for the members to enjoy. I think a good restoration begins with preserving what obviously already works very well and identifying the features to the club so they won’t be lost by future generations. The next stage is to point out what is not working as well as it should and figure out if there are any easy ways to make it work without major change – such as a new tee or an additional bunker. Finally the last stage is to look through the holes that time and equipment has rendered obsolete and figure out if there is a way to make change and still preserve pieces to keep the spirit of the holes. The last alternative is to take those architectural elements and recreate them in a new location.

But what if the course was designed by one of the greats but really doesn’t have much in the way of great architecture to work from? What if an associate built the course? What if the project was a routing plan built by the members? What if it’s a great course with one awful hole?

If there is truly little there, you preserve what you can and set out to renovate the course to the style of the architect – that way the work should blend in with the original features that remain. If an associate worked on it – if it’s good you work with it since it doesn’t matter who designed good work – if it’s bad you make change based around the famous architects work making sure you still blend in with what will remain. In most cases features like bunkers are all done at once to keep things consistant and to allow for a broader change if necessary. If the architect did a routing plan but the features lack the artistry – you simple step in and try to make the course appear like it was done by the original architect by interpreting the drawings. If it’s a great course with an awful hole – you fix the hole. You try to work with the original intent and just remove the part of the hole that fails to work – like a green or poorly placed bunker scheme.

Occasionally you find yourself looking at a course that provides little or no inspiration – if they want a restoration – you pass on the work (and yes I’ve done that before). If they understand you need to make change - then you pick a style based around an architect, an era, or a technique that is appropriate for the course and the club.

Tom Doak is right after all – there are courses by famous architects that should not be preserved.

Tough to choose pictures since most clubs would be upset with being included. St. George's is aware of how good a course they have and how much the 3rd holds them back from being by far the best in Canada. If the 2010 Canadian Open goes there - very likely - that green will be rebuilt.

Restoration - Part 2 - Plans, Images or Built Form?

2007-11-28T07:21:00.001-05:00

I thought I would continue to look at restoration this week and delve further into the world of grey.

One of the greatest debates - coming mainly from the restoration of Donald Ross courses – is whether to restore to his plans. This is applicable to other architects too, but the main proponents to using drawings work a lot with Ross courses. Donald – or his associates – was well known to put together very detailed grading plans with clear instruction into the intent of what he was trying to build at each green site. He left us many copies of complete greens drawings in places like the Tuft’s archives and now architects have embraced that resource to help with restoration efforts.

Some architects argue that these are the best resource that an architect can have since the intentions and directions are all there for you to use in restoring the hole. Other architects counter that every architect makes field adjustments on site and we should have far more respect for the final built form than what is represented on those drawings. Their argument is that drawings are always the starting place for all work, but the real craft comes with direction – and change – made in the field.

Ron Whitten recently chastised the architects who stick “too purely” to drawings with their restoration efforts. He has pointed out that Ross himself rebuilt a number of his courses to keep up with the changes in technology and that Ross was a believer in renovation even with his own work. Whitten’s argument is pure restoration is the equivalent of an architect putting their head in the sand and ignoring the changes taking place around them. He feels that historical renovation is appropriate but should be “sympathetically” – which means keeping the character, strategy and style but not necessarily preserving the actual features.

Like all great arguments – there is no right or wrong – only a strong opinion from either side. So where do I sit?

I believe built form and opening day photos takes precedence over working drawings. If you’re going to restore – then it must be what was actually built. If you’re going to make alterations to deal with the changes in the game then it usually becomes more appropriate to sympathetically renovate. I find in very general terms I tend to do both. I like to keep most of the holes intact and look mainly for new tees so that I’m not altering the architecture just returning the old intended landing area. I prefer to leave all short holes well alone since they usually feature the wildest and most interesting architecture. If you lengthen those holes – often down the road the green becomes a candidate for a rebuild to bring in fairness. I generally try to pick my spots from where I try to gain length or improve holes that seem to lack some of the charm that others have – if I can do this using lost features or strategies than I’m more inclined to make change. If change involves new ideas – I tend to steer the club to accepting a shorter quirkier course and try to council the club against alterations. That’s where I sit on this debate.

To fully understand how grey an area this is: I am introducing some new short grass areas at Cherry Hill Club (by Walter Travis) but everything is based upon – wait for it – the working drawings! I have no photos from the early years but I do have his working drawings and enough other examples that support the idea. All in all – there is no actual answer to this debate – only opinion – and even that changes through different circumstances.

To Part 3

Restoration - part 1 - shades of grey

2007-11-27T08:03:00.002-05:00

I deal with a lot of renovation work – and as time has progressed – more and more of the work is restorative in nature. I’m grateful to be in this position and have made a lot of effort to learn about each of the courses I work with and about their respective architects. The one thing I find about this line of work is that it is occasionally very humbling since you can never assume that you know enough and must keep searching for more clarity on each architect – knowing that nothing will ever be completely black or white.

1939 St. George's aerial

A few courses such as Cataraqui and St. George’s turned out to be very well documented and the courses were pretty accurate restorations – but most have limited information leaving me with shades of grey to deal with in order to do my job. This is where you combine all the clues you have – from photos through to aerials – with some of your experience with that particular architect. You occasionally end up in the position of having to make an educated guess. You rely on what is still intact and combine that with what you know about the architect and try to make any renovations match the work and strategies f the existing course – this is called a sympathetic renovation.

Often while the desire was for a restoration – so you restore what you can and then fill in the remaining blanks the best you can through experience. As a close friend said about his work on a Thompson course recently – and he did a great job – how can I call it restorative when I didn’t know what was originally there. That’s the reality of some of the work you get involved with.

The Thompson Plan for Kawarth Golf & Country Club

The only part of this job that can become frustrating is when a crucial piece shows up right after you finish the work - like the Thompson plan did at Kawartha Golf & Country Club. The other side of the this is when fortune gives you what you need right before you start – Craig Moore from the Cutten Club located an old aerial from which I revised the Master Plan and tender to insure it was more accurate.

Today I was at Cherry Hill Club looking at an old Master Plan – I have more than five years of additional insight into Travis and I knew a few areas could use a tweak to be more accurate and interesting. After meeting with the club, I slogged my way through the rain to review the greens and reassess the grassing lines. I knew so much more about his work and understood a few of the features that left had previously left me perplexed – it was the perfect opportunity to bring a little more accuracy to the plan.

The Working drawings for Travis's Cherry Hill Club

I wish it were all black and white, but its not, it’s almost shades of grey. I find it’s the way that you handle those shades of grey that separate the work from being inappropriate or hard to distinguish from the original work.

To Part 2

10 More things I don't like

2007-11-22T08:11:00.001-05:00

10 more that I choose not to write about but also would make my list are:

1. forced carries - the are tremendously unfair when presented to a below average player or when the wind is in your face and the carry is long.
2. irrigated fescue – (my biggest pet peeve) might as well be a lateral water hazard, although it becomes worse since it slows play with looking for balls.
3. internal out of bounds – mainly done to make a practice range safe but occasionally has been added as a cruel compliment to a hole – any hazard without recovery should be liberally used.
4. goalpost architecture (hazards that line up across from each other) – anything that pinches rather than inviting a player to either flirt or fly reduces the game to execution (zzzzzzzzzzzz)
5. doglegs greater than 45 degrees. – creates an situation where the average player must always play safe, the good player usually is forced into playing a lay-up, but also often creates a hole where the longest player can take such a short route that the hole no longer makes sense (Crooked Stick and Daly).
6. a course with no short par fours (350 or less) – it’s dull to play and creates a lack of variety
7. a par five over 600 yards – this is never done to create an interesting hole since a 600 yard plus piece of great terrain is almost non-existent – its done as a yardage grab – the holes are long and dull as plain toast.
8. three (or more) tiered greens – the only thing with that many steps should be the approach to the clubhouse.
9. tees with contour – it simply hurts my eyes and wastes useable tee surface
10. bunkers that are meaningless because they are flat – they have no influence on the game whatsoever and they still must be maintained

What would you add and why?

10 Things I Don’t Like - #10 Wide Greens with Front Bunkers

2007-11-21T22:38:00.001-05:00

I thought it would be a more interesting choice than the obvious ones I also considered.

A good players rarely come up short or long – they have fairly reasonable distance control and will usually club themselves with-in 10 yards if there is no wind or elevation to deal with. On the other side of the coin – they tend to miss more to the left or right – particularly when they are required to work a ball on a recovery shot.

A weaker player tends to miss most often in front of the green because they have either miss-hit or misjudged the approach shot. The will miss left or right and occasionally long through swing faults – but the vast majority of shots will be short. When in trouble they will often play back to safety before trying to take on a shot to the green

A strong player is rarely intimidated by a carry unless the carry is either long or on a diagonal. The have more issues dealing with a narrow target or a green that slopes to the side than trying to find the courage to make a carry over a front bunker. In fact a fronting bunker often makes the shot clearer and easier to execute since the carry clearly defines the shot they need to hit.

The weaker player hates a carry because this is not a strong suit of weaker player’s game and also the idea of a carry adds pressure to the situation. When you throw in the complications of limited trajectories and limited abilities to carry the ball and you can easily see why this penalizes the weaker player.

There is no question in my mind that the very old fashioned approach of flanking a green with bunkers and leaving the front wide open is the best way to defend a green site. It opens up a clear and fair approach to the weaker player, while telling the good player not to leak the ball left or right on their approach. It also gives both level of player the option to bounce in the approach if they so desire.

10 other things

10 Things I Don’t Like - #9 Squeezing the Landing Areas

2007-11-20T08:09:00.001-05:00

Pine Valley's 4th

One of the greatest surprises I ever had came from playing Pine Valley – I went there expecting to be tortured by an impossibly hard course where every miss was trouble. The misses were indeed deep trouble – but the fairways were surprisingly generous leaving the player the opportunity to challenge the course. I found Pine valley to still be one of the stiffest tests I have ever faced – but eminently fair since the fairways were wide.

The European Club's 3rd

I’ve played courses such as Royal Portrush where the landings are very narrow and bordered by deep thick fescue. One the 9th hole I had an unplayable lie 2 feet off the 25 yard wide fairway – I don’t see the need for such a set up. I found at Portrush that each miss was a disaster of epic proportions that day – yet there was no room left for the average player or to deal with the regular strong winds. I really liked Portrush its well designed – but I found the set up got so tight that it presented no options and did not provide me with the charm and pleasure I found at other Harry Colt courses I played.

Royal Portrush's 8th

I went to visit Marine Drive in BC a few years back and was flabbergasted by the narrowness of the fairway corridors. Each hole was walled with trees so narrow that even a slightly pushed or pulled tee shot was certain to find wood. What was even more mind-blowing was the new planting of trees inside those tree lines on a couple of holes. It was a test of golf with very few options.

Marine Drive's 15th - a wider corridow than 10!

I recently played a Gary Player course in Florida where the landing areas were all completely flanked by ponds on one side (16 shots in one round!) always with bunkers and trees framing the other. I’m sure Gary could squeeze a tee shot through the 30 yard corridor but the rest of us can’t. Why would anyone play there twice?

It doesn’t matter how you create the squeeze in the landings – it removes all the options for the player and turns the game into execution. There is no test of courage or decision making – it is a test of execution under pressure. Even the best courses can become victims of a stiff set up and lose some of their charm.

Merion's 14th - note the bunkers away from the fairway

On the same trip to Pine Valley I played Merion for the first time. I loved Merion for all the skill in routing and bunker placement but was stunned that the fairways were very narrow and the rough so thick and high.
It always struck me that Merion was tricked up through the course set-up when it didn’t need to be. I felt the narrow fairways took away the opportunity or desire to try and gain position or challenge the bunkers – there was too much penalty for a miss. I would like to play the course in the spring before the rough grows up to see what the difference makes.

To Part 10

10 Things I Don’t Like - #8 Area Drains in the Fairways

2007-11-19T08:05:00.001-05:00

One of the consistent things that I enjoy on older courses is the natural flow of the land uninterrupted by man-made contours. I’ll even take flat fairway over ones that have been artificially shaped to have roll. The modern idea seems to be that fairways must be receptive to be fair and rolling to be interesting. Architects now shape the fairways to achieve both and have turned to fairway area drains in order to make it work.

The new fairways are not only contrived but often feature a “moon like” appearance where the area drains have been used. The placement is so uniform and predictable that the shaping around the basins often upstages even great bunkering. I look at a great course like Tobacco Road where the wildness of the bunkering stands out – yet quite often the fairways come across as too contrived due to the extensive use of area drains in the landing areas. Even a create mind like Mike Strantz can’t overcome the definitive bowl shape that catches your eye and interrupts the natural flow of the land. Once you start using them – there can no longer be anything natural about the fairways. The more you use the less natural the look.

The main reason they are used is to catch water and get it underground as soon as possible so that play will not be interrupted through rain. The only problem with this idea is the low areas around the basins tend to remain wet – and since that is where most balls tend to collect the results are less than satisfying as a player. Throw in ice problems in the north and agronomic problems with wet turf and you wonder why they are so prevalent. If the fairway can be drained off to either side it always removes water far more effectively.

Some builder’s and superintendent’s want them since they catch water quickly to avoid washouts during grow in but there are so many alternatives from wood mulch to just plain old sod that turning to basins should remain a last resort. I personally like to make a conscious effort to route holes so that water can fall off the sides and avoid the problems in the first place. Holes with containment mounds are often forced to use them.

They need to be treated as a necessary evil rather than an important tool – then golf courses will be much better for the change in attitude.

To Part 9

10 Things I Don't Like - #7 Island Greens

2007-11-14T08:20:00.001-05:00

Golf Digest once had a worst golfer tournament where they took the four worst “avid” golfers and had them play 18 holes against each other at the TPC at Sawgrass. Three of them ran out of balls except one brilliant guy who putt “around” the 17th hole and “across” the causeway to preserve his last ball and so that he could finish – and win.

The 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass may be one of the greatest holes in golf due to the tournament and the influence it has on the outcome, but it is also one of the worst concepts ever to be copied by architects. Admittedly this idea actually goes back to Herbert Strong at Ponte Vedra Golf Club and Pete’s version was not the first – but the 17th at Sawgrass is the ultimate version of the idea. As a one off, the 17th is an exceptional hole and ideal for the tournament format it serves. It teaches us a lot about nerves, psychology and finally shows us a way into the players head; and not just for that hole, but the entire round. Think about how much the impact would be reduced if the hole were the 3rd or 4th.

Now let’s look at the island green as a concept. The concept has no recovery unless the island is expanded beyond the green perimeter – although even that is still semantics to me. I’ve played a couple of these and when the wind howls it becomes ridiculous. Every shot is either hit or miss the island – not long on options is it? Think about this, the approach shot is a forced carry. The approach shot has no safe play or alternative route to reach the green surface by skirting around trouble. A player could easily find themselves in a position where they can not finish the hole and potentially the round! All the great holes that I have shown you over this year have at least the opportunity to recover – this is one of the few exceptions in architecture (architorture?). My personal belief is that recovery is a key component of the game. There is a fine line between extremely difficult and unfair – and this crosses “my” line.

I can feel for those guys at the TPC. I played in an event last spring that involved an island green on a private course in North Carolina. It was best two scores of four players – after the round we found out every group had two players that did not complete the hole. How could that possibly be fun on a daily basis for the average player? As much as I enjoyed the 17th at TPC, and I did find the green, the thought of playing it daily is dreadful. I watched my playing partner hit 6 shots before giving up. It works well as a resort experience, given the circumstance of the annual TPC Championship – but not as a hole concept.

To Part 8

10 Things I Don't Like - #6 Trees Directly in Play

2007-11-13T08:12:00.001-05:00

A good example of willows blocking the ideal line at Taconic

We can all think of memorable holes where a majestic Oak or Maple sets the corner of a dogleg. As a golf course architect I have spent a great deal of time looking for these specimens to design a hole around them. Muskoka Bay was cleared to establish nearly 100 specimen trees just inside the tree line of the holes. Yes, the rumour that I hate trees is in fact untrue.

We are awed by the scale of those trees and the importance that they have for those holes. It’s exciting to play a tee that flirts with the trees in order to gain an advantage on the hole. The basis of Parkland Golf is as much the setting of golf in tress as it is the need to work the ball around a well placed one during the round. As Tillinghast stated the trees can have strategic value “as long as it does not interfere with the sound play of the game.”

The problem I run into time and time again in my work with existing courses is that too many trees are playing too large a role in the way holes are played. The majority of these trees are not encroaching at the edges but instead acting as sentinels blocking the path. For a large tree to be used architecturally it should be isolated. This means that no other trees are inside the drip line which allows alternative shots to get around the tree or recovery from underneath. The hole must have enough width between trees so that a player can play to the other side to avoid the specimen tree altogether.

This tree will only get bigger and bigger

When you think about the tree as a golf courses hazard, it represents the only vertical hazard in the game. Even a perfectly struck shot can be knocked down by the branching and redirected into deeper trouble. Only a hazard that can be flown should be used in the direct line of the hole. Where committees make the most mistakes is when they place a tree that in the short term can be flown or avoided. They forget with growth that their small tee will eventually block all play and remove all the options on the hole.

The most offensive of all trees is the one in the fairway. There is nothing more frustrating than seeing a situation where a player can hit their very best into the centre of the fairway only to be either knocked down by the tree or stymied on their next shot. Often it’s both. There is not one great central tree in golf – each is as ridiculous and inexcusable as the least one. Their only value is the firewood that they will be eventually cut into.

While a strong player can often get by - the average player is punished on a regular basis

Trees should be used only to frame the hole and reinforce the strategy. They tend to remove all the options on a hole when they are too close to the line of play. When options are they key to creating interest – trees should be the last choice for creating the strategy of the hole.

To part 7

10 Things I Don’t Like - #5 The Overuse of Ponds as a Hazard

2007-11-12T07:22:00.001-05:00

I had the chance to look at someone else’s Master Plan for a new golf course the other day. It was typical of most modern courses that I have seen built in recent years, where every time the architect was faced with limited natural features he simply added ponds to create interest. I counted water “directly” in play at eight green sites. The architect had four holes with water in play from tee to green and two of those were par fives that doglegged around a large pond.

The reliance on water as a primary hazard began with the Trent Jones era – and became a staple of modern design. That was the era where “Championship” courses became the vogue and the use of the water hazard became the key intimidating defense that golf architects turned to protect par. Since most sites did not offer natural bodies of water, the architects simply added ponds to place it where it was most effective.

Well this was all and good when the player had enough skill and control to avoid most of the water and this created a lot of excitement for people watching tournament golf. The problem came when the “average” player was faced with the same challenge. You see they are afraid of water and don’t have the control to avoid the hazard on a regular basis. The intimidation is much greater than a bunker or rough since there is absolutely no recovery from a pond. A ball in the water represents two lost shots. In contrast a bunker may represent no lost shots if a perfect recovery is made. Water’s judgment of the shot is absolute and final and to add insult to injury, in many cases the player is forced to repeat the shot often ending up repeating the performance until they have to pick up.

I’m not total against the inclusion of water or even a pond – and I do like streams, burns, rivers and and lakes - but I don’t like the continuous use of ponds to bring water in play throughout the round. I also question the need to constantly bring water hard up against water the green when the hazard can be varied like the placement of bunkers. Water certainly has its place – but if the architect continually places water in play, he frustrates the average player by the relentless nature of the challenge. If the course is too challenging – golfers will stray away and support another area facility.

I looked at the proposal again and thought I’ve seen enough of those holes already. They all tend to look and play exactly alike. I kept thinking why so much water – and wondered who would want to play it on a regular basis.

To Part 6

10 Things I Don’t Like - #4 The Predictable Finishing Hole

2007-11-08T08:18:00.002-05:00

I can’t think of anything more predictably than having the final hole dogleg around a large pond or having a pond up tight against the final green. When you start to go through all the new courses that you know – check out how many times the architect has turned to this technique. Throw in the fact that most of them are either back breaking long par four to provide a “championship” finish or a shorter par five “so that a tournament can be decided by one heroic shot” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It’s time that golf got more thought in the finishing hole. Look at the 18th at Olympic, a short uphill par four with a decidedly tricky approach shot. That was still a great finish despite the fact that it had no water or no length. Winged Foot’s 18th, while long, is protected by a very aggressive shoulder of the green with no bunkers – let alone water. Southern Hills was a wonderful uphill approach to a very tough green – yet so many of our courses revolve around a man made water feature to bring in the “drama” of water at the close.

What ever happened to the notion of a hole that we could attack at the end of the round? I love Troon’s 18th where a birdie is definitely in the cards but the hole is still full of danger if you become too aggressive. Think about all the links courses and the finishing holes. Very few have water except the occasional burn – streams don’t bother me as much as ponds do. Almost all the finishers outside of “Car-nasty” are quite playable with many being downright easy.

So coming back to North America – why the hell has the long par four or short par five become the defacto finisher. I get TPC – because of the tournament – but 99.9% of all other courses built won’t even see a significant amateur event let along the pros. Look at Weston’s finisher that requires a bounce in approach, look at Toronto Golf’s that is largely misunderstood but a great little hole. St. Georges, Hamilton, Westmount, Jasper, Banff (the real one), Capilano, Highlands. It’s time to break this silly notion and design better finishing holes.

Before you point out Pebble Beach is the best closer in golf – which I agree – that one is all natural. I’m talking about a created situation that I’ve seen way too many times.

To Part 5

10 Things I Don’t Like – #3 - Two Bunker styles

2007-11-07T07:18:00.001-05:00

I like the courses that I used as examples - I'm not trying to criticize them - only to illustrate what I won't do. After all, others may really like what they see.

Playing a course is like a journey down a meandering path. It may be full of deviations and amazing surprises, certain sections that are more difficult, others are more comfortable, but there are also many consistencies like the width of the path or the setting of the walk. In nature there is as much variety as there is repetition – and since great architecture comes from reflecting what we see in nature – golf architecture must have some repetition and consistency too.

In golf architecture most would select variety as the key component to creating superior golf courses, but you also need consistency to link it all together. The variety is usually found in the hole design or playing experience whereas the consistency is in the style or aesthetics of the course.

On most great courses, the bunkering is what links the course together. It is particularly useful when there is a transition from one setting to a completely different one on the golf course. The key to the success of a course like Cypress Point is the linking of the dunes to the forest to the ocean side through the bunkering.

I have gone to see a couple of really good courses recently where the bunker work was done in multiple styles. I found that despite some great holes and some really good bunkers, the architecture felt disjointed. Eagles Nest is a really well designed layout – probably my favourite by Doug - but the use of traditional pot bunkers in combination with expanses of sand rather than complimenting each other conflicts. I would like the course more if the one choice was made simplifying the look of the course.

Another interesting layout I went to see was Dakota Dunes - a nice course by Wayne - where I was taken by the natural blowout bunkers that he routed holes around. What I did not understand was where he added new bunkers and built them to be circular pot bunkers which run in such stark contrast to the natural blow outs. You can add an element that contrasts the land but you can't do that when the other one compliments the site - it doesn't work when used in combination.

Cypress Point manages to flow through three unique habitats as one consistent golf course – all because of the bunkering Mackenzie built.

I think its very important to point out that I probably have created an example of this too. This is Ballantrae where the project required "waste" bunkers to collect all run-off and have the water infiltrate naturally into the sand sub-soil as part of the approvals. The rest of the bunkering is more formal creating a contrast in styles.

To Part 4

10 Things I Don’t Like - #2 Target Bunkers

2007-11-06T06:34:00.001-05:00

The ideal bunker is one that you have to either fly or skirt it in order to gain a clear advantage on the hole. When you stand on the tee or in the fairway, you should be conflicted between the advantage that you could gain and the penalty that hitting in will produce. When you hit by or over you should get a thrill and when you hit in you should be terribly disappointed. It should be a bunker that once you’ve hit into it – you will steer clear for a while before you once again begin to flirt with it – up until the point where you hit it in again. This should be a continuous dance between the course and the player.

A target bunker is a point in the distance where a bunker indicates an ideal line but offers little or no strategic value. Many architects bunker the outside of holes in order to make the player more comfortable since the ideal line is so clearly defined – and player like that. Ever wondered why so many tour pro courses have so many bunkers.

Think about this – an architectural feature with no strategic value – something used to make the player more comfortable. I’ve already indicated that the ideal bunker should make a player “uncomfortable because of the decision and consequence. This is how an architect achieves not only strategy – but interest too.

The target bunker came with modern golf – Trent squeezed the landings for challenge – and the next generation of architects pulled the bunkers apart for playability. They liked the definition that bunkers on the inside and outside of the hole created – so they left the outside bunkers for definition. Since most are out of play intentionally, they are simply eye candy or targets. Think about this – there is no need to defend the outside of a dogleg since the hole plays longer from playing to the outside. The inside route needs is defending to complicate the desire of a player to take the shortest route. While there are a few exceptions to their use – in general – they are unnecessary. Throw in the cost to build and maintain them and you wonder why we have so many.

To Part 3

10 Things I Don't Like - #1 Containment Mounding

2007-11-05T07:15:00.002-05:00

This the K Club - look at the mound on the right side and how much it stands out from the land around it.

The following series will be about the 10 architectural features or techniques that I don’t like. The intent is not to put down the other architects that use these techniques because it’s a matter of taste. I have spent a lot of time talking about holes I admire and techniques that I would use in my new design work – what I want to do with this series is further clarify my style and technique by explaining what I won’t do.

The architectural feature that makes me “throw up” the most is the containment mound.

The containment mound is an artificial hillock that sticks up from the surrounding grade with no relation to the land around it. It is commonly employed to create separation between holes and to supply definition to a landing area or green site. They tend to be used in groups and quite often down the entire sides of holes so that the entire hole feels like your playing in a “valley”. Modern architecture can largely be defined through the extensive use of this technique.

So what’s wrong with them you ask?

Any course where they are used extensively tends to be very artificial in appearance. Trust me – no amount of fescue can hide these bad boys – they always scream “I’m man-made.” Alister Mackenzie explained to all of us how important it was to create new features that look like existing features so that they blend into the surroundings. Architecture is at its best when the beginning of what was created is not clear from what the architect left alone. The containment mound never blends – in fact it “blocks” out the land or trees beyond making a natural tie into the surrounding landscape impossible. It tells the player that the only thing that is important – is inside the high points. Imagine that at a place like Cypress Point!

See how the mounds block out the trees

But they help me aim my shot.

We come from an era where everything is over defined. If you have a carry bunker on a corner – it says make the carry and gain an advantage. Then why place containment mounds on the outside when the one single bunker defines the hole. It’s the addiction to definition that has made the containment mound far too common. With grass being different colours and different heights – it provides us with clear contrasts and definition of what is long grass, what is rough, what is fairway and what is green. Add a few splashes of sand for emphasis and everything is easy to understand. The reason the feature has become so common is that every time an architect runs into marginal land they feel there must be a limit to the hole when the reality is it can simply blend out to the surrounding landscape.

The technical problem with containment mound is as they tend to flank holes they also collect the water into the centre of the fairway. Often they create wet areas on fairways and lead to poor fairway turf. The common technique to deal with this is to use an extensive and expensive system of catch basins and sub-surface drainage. This is particularly a shame when there was often enough natural grade to remove the water across the fairway removing the need for catch basins and leaving the fairways firm. Not to mention the wasted earthmoving and topsoil stripping used to create them.

They are expensive to create and a blight on the landscape.

To Part 2

Four Bunker Lips that Won’t Erode

2007-10-15T07:55:00.000-04:00

This is the answer to the question Henry E asked a few times in recent comments on the blog. I wanted to answer this one with a full blog since the answer is not short. In the Banff blog I mentioned that the soil is too light and too stony to have an exposed soil lip. This is a problem at a lot of courses, yet common practice is to have a soil edge to create a clean sharp line. The problem of course is that the soil lips break down and contaminate the sand and the erosion is the main cause of lost bunker lines. That’s why I try to almost always encourage clubs to go with a living grass lip.

There are four techniques to accomplish this. The first method comes right from the origins of golf – the revetted face. You don’t have to use this technique up the entire face. You can create your bunker with typical flowing lines or steep slopes leading in and still create a small shelf right where the sand meets the soil. In that location you add three to four rolls of sod stacked on top of each other and then pull the soil over the top till it has a low 6” revetted edge. You now have a living 6” lip on your bunker.

Method number two, used at St. George’s in the bunker restoration was to shape the bunker with all the faces and noses, then hand trim out a flat ledge where the sand meets the turf. On the ledge we placed a topsoil filled burlap bag. This created a bunker edge that rounded down into a vertical lip. The bunker lip now has far more organic than the rest of the soil which helps with water retention and establishes must deeper rooting. The shape of the bag created a natural round shape and a vertical interface with the bunker. The sod was simply stapled into the bag to ensure the form stayed together. The burlap bag roots and disappears in only a few months.

The next method is to hand shape the entire edge – this was done at Weston when I did the bunker renovation. This is accomplished if the natural soil is tight enough to hold together. If not a clay topsoil is used to provide a stable enough material to build a bunker lip. The bunker is shaped by mini-excavator and then the bunker face is topsoiled and machine packed. The bunker lines are then cut out by hand – by me – and the excess topsoil is removed. The bunker edges are hand shaved until they are round enough to be sod. The grass is pinned over the soil and into the bunker to ensure stability and avoid erosion. The sod is trimmed out after rooting leaving a vertical sod lip.

The next method is called undercutting. This is done to an existing bunker and involves hand cutting the sod on the face and pulling it back and up the slope. With a shovel you remove around 6” of the soil from behind the bunker lip – usually into a bucket or gator depending how easily you can access the bunker face – until you have a pocket behind the original edge. You then fold the sod back down in tamping it into the face leaving a vertical face of living sod. This sod has an established root system and needs little time to firm up and because of the established grass mixture is usually resilient to droughty periods.

Henry – you have your answer – but I also feel like I shared some things that I didn’t want to.

Sasktoon 8th

2007-09-27T07:43:00.000-04:00

7th at Saskatoon

2007-09-26T00:08:00.000-04:00

6th at Saskatoon

2007-09-25T08:32:00.000-04:00

Top 50 in Ontario – Part 2 – My List and what didn’t make The List

2007-08-27T19:58:00.000-04:00

I have an early flight Tuesday - so here is the post now - although I likely will post something that evening about where I am and what I'm doing.

Turns out after I identified my top 40 with all potential conflicts of interest (clubs I've worked with) I was dropped from the panel.

Here is my List

1. St. George’s
2. Hamilton
3. Toronto
4. Westmount
5. Devil’s Paintbrush

6. National
7. St. Thomas
8. Eagle’s Nest
9. Catarqui
10. Scarboro
11. Lookout Point
12. Bigwin Island
13. Oviinbyrd
14. Weston
15. Summit
16. Rosedale
17. Essex
18. Burlington
Burlington is a great Stanley Thompson gem that lays out great hole after great hole until you get to the 17th where you wonder if you crossed the road to the wrong golf course. The long par fours like the 1st, 13th and 15th are standouts and the green sites are consistently interesting. The routing is a clever use of a small piece of land where Stanley used some of the best fill pad green sites to make it extra tough on the approaches.
19. Osprey Valley (Heathlands)
20. Highlands CC
Highlands is the gem that nobody knows. The George Cumming / Stanley Thompson design makes excellent use of a really interesting piece of terrain right in the heart of London. The long fours are memorable particularly with the small targets surrounded by bunkers. The threes are varied and interesting and the fives are all exciting with plenty of character. Not one weak moment on this course yet nobody pays attention.
21. Brantford
22. King Valley
23. Red Tail
24. Beacon Hall
25. Angus Glen South
26 Maple Downs
This may have to do more to do with access than anything else. Maple Downs is a great (largely) Jewish club with a small family based membership. It also occupies a wonderfully hilly piece of ground that leads to some really wonderful holes – with a few like the 10th and 13th being wonderful despite being quite unconventional. There are many standouts from the 3rd, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th and 17th – so much great golf.
27 Glen Abbey
28 Kawartha
Imagine playing an intact Thompson course with bunkering every bit as good as St. George’s, but with a bit more room to enjoy your game. Go to Kawartha, this is ‘The” hidden gem in Canada with wonderful terrain, really tough par threes, lots of short fours and all the fives are reachable and exciting holes to play. This is a great example of Thompson’s traditional approach of mixing fun and difficulty in even measure.
29 Lake Joseph
In certain moments, I would call this the best that Muskoka golf has to offer, and in others instances there are holes that truly make you question the routing. I think at times Tom took a few more risks than normal and many of those moments work well, other times it doesn’t, but I’d still rather play there than Rocky Crest any day.
30 London Hunt
31 Georgian Bay
32 Osprey Valley (Pine Barrens)
33. Ottawa Hunt
OK so some of the greens are over the top – 5 have already been rebuilt back since Lorne’s article criticizing the course during the Women’s Canadian Open, but underneath all that is a great rolling property with beautiful undulating fairways and lots of interesting shots. I think the course has been dismissed because of the criticism in the past – and yes a few greens are still too much – but otherwise this is still a course worth seeing.
34. Deerhurst Highlands
35. Thornhill
Another course with so many great holes, and yet never gets the attention it deserves. Find a better and more varied run of holes than the 9 through 13. The 17th was always a weak point but Cam Tyers did a wonderful job making changes and the rest of the courses is pretty strong. There are average holes, but none are bad, which can’t be said of many far higher ranked courses on the list. I prefer the course to many of the modern courses that draw far more attention.
36. Rocky Crest
37. Greystone
38. Cherry Hill (worked at)
39. Bond Head (south)
I must admit I go back and forth on this course. I love sections of it like the 2nd and 4th and struggle with other areas like the opener and finishing holes on the front nine. The back nine opens well but a few holes are a bit much like the 15th which has no options around the green. Largely strong, but a little overshaped for my taste.
40. Mad River
Great set of greens, many interesting holes like the 2nd and 6th while others like the 4th hold back the design. I always wondered about the routing on the back nine and whether that was the ideal way to deal with the property. Many great holes out there but others like the finisher leave you a little under whelmed.

Top 50 in Ontario – Part 1 – My Thoughts on the List

2007-08-27T07:02:00.000-04:00

I thought I was on the panel and did provide my own top 40 out of the 125 or so courses that I have played in Ontario. I didn’t see my name on the list of panelist top 5 picks – I was late and may have been left out for that reason – so I thought I would provide comments on the list and finally my own list. There are some on the current list I have not played, but they are all new courses with lots of support and play from the rest of the panel.

I thought I would limit my comments to the course that I think either draw too much attention or get too little love. I’ve added my comments of why I think the way I do.

The entire list and series of articles are here: http://www.golfontario.ca/sitepages/?cid=58

The list is as follows:
1. St. George’s G&CC
Of note: There was a nice compliment on St. George's section of the Top 50 courses: "Without doubt the best example of Stanley Thompson’s timeless genius. Ian Andrew’s restoration renewed the luster to this, the crown jewel of Ontario golf." Rest of piece on St. George’s is here: http://golfontario.ca/sitepages/?cid=265
2. Hamilton G&CC
3. The National Golf Club of Canada
Top 10 – This is the most one dimensional golf course on the list. You have very few options and very few opportunities to play alternative shots. Its Canada’s best examination of execution – that doesn’t mean it’s the best course.
4. Beacon Hall
Top 25 – Never got the support for this course. There are many great holes like the 16th but just as many head scratcher’s like the 6th. The holes from 4 through to 8 are pretty average for a course considered in the top 5. The greens have never caught my fancy with the bumps being very artificial. I’m still convinced the support comes more from the exclusivity than the design.
5. Westmount G&CC
6. Bigwin Island
7. Coppinwood GC
8. Eagles Nest GC9. Muskoka Bay Club
10. Redtail GC
Top 25 – The ranking reflects more about the experience overall than the course. The tightness off the tee, the small undulating greens and the forced carries add up to an average course. There is so much to like in the low profile approach to design with some truly magnificent holes, but others like “Peace” are so forced by tightness that it is a let down on what should be a high point in the round.
11. Devil’s Paintbrush
Top 5 – Best course designed in modern era. The mixture of available shots, the variety of holes and the truly unique style of the course makes it a personal favourite in Ontario. Even where Dana Fry went over the top it still couldn’t diminish the variety and fun found on the course.
12. The Ridge at Manitou
13. Devil’s Pulpit
Top 50 – The Disneyland of golf courses with far too many ideas and too many styles on one course. The use of mounding goes against the very core of my personal beliefs in what a course should look and play like. Devil’s Pulpit feels like Dana used ever idea he had ever seen and mixed into one course with a disjointed effect.
14. Toronto GC
Top 5 – I have always held the opinion that Toronto Golf may be far too subtle for most people to get. Repeated playing teaches you that the course rewards working the ball. You can play this course on the ground or take in on in the air, but that is up to you. The par fours are almost as good a collection as St. George’s (Canada’s best collection) and provide outstanding variety –even the 18th – which most people consider a weak point due to length.
15. London Hunt and CC
16. Rocky Crest GC
Top 50 – The setting is great and the way Tom dealt with the rock is very well done. The golf course underneath is far less interesting than Lake Joseph or Oviinbyrd which are far better courses.
17. Taboo
Top 50 – Too many decidedly average holes to be great, although the use of rock at times is quite impressive.
18. Brantford G&CC,
19. Magna GC
20. Glen Abbey GC
21. Osprey Valley Resorts (Heathlands course)
Top 10 – My favourite course to play designed by Doug, the ground game a round the greens is always fun and the greens are really great (in my humble opinion).
22. Mississaugua G&CC
Top 50 – A very disjointed course with an awful stretch of holes in the valley built to deal with the flooding. I hope that Doug’s rebuilding of 18 greens can bring the course together but I also fear that losing a few of my favourite greens will be a let down too.
23. The Georgian Bay Club
24. Weston G&CC
25. Essex G&CC
26. Heron Point Golf Links
27. Copper Creek GC
28. Scarboro G&CC, Scarborough
Top 10 – I can’t for the life of me figure out why this course doesn’t get more support. The use of land, great green sites and terrific set of par threes should easily vault this in the top 10. Is it the series of short fours and then a drive over the road at the end that ruins people’s perceptions of the rest of a great course?
29. King Valley GC
30. St. Thomas G&CC
Top 10 – The work by Thompson is good, the work by Robbie Robinson may be his best. The course is a terrific run through some wildly undulating terrain, with many great par fours throughout.
31. Deer Ridge GC
32. Rosedale GC
33. Wildfire GC
34. Deerhurst Highlands
35. Oakdale G&CC
36. Angus Glen GC (South)
37. Whitewater GC
38. Seguin Valley G&CC
39. Summit G&CC
Top 15 – I like the club a lot more than others do, many great holes on one of the best properties in Ontario.
40. Mad River GC
41. National Pines GC
42. Lookout Point CC
Top 15 – This is a course where you must adapt for the terrain. You need to bounce the ball in, play for cross-slope and adjust for changes of elevation. This makes this a course that you must learn to play well. Likely ignored due to location more than design.
43. The Raven GC at Lora Bay
44. Crimson Ridge GC
45. Galt CC
46. Granite
47. Greystone GC
48. Cherry Hill
49. Osprey Valley Resorts (Wasteland course)
50. Cataraqui G&CC
Top 10 – Other than the course is a little short, there is little to knock on this gem. The par three’s are collectively outstanding with the 2nd and 15th being two of the very best in the province. The course has a bit of a quiet section on the later part of the front nine but otherwise features an outstanding collection of holes.

Tomorrow my list and some comments on the NINE courses I list that did not make the list.
The blog may be late since I fly tomorrow.

The Mid-Length Four

2007-08-02T07:45:00.000-04:00

Cypress Point has lots of sub-400 yard holes including 13 and 17 on the back nine

This blog stems from EC’s question, “There are hard or as you put it insurmountable holes. There are fairly easy or as you put it breather holes. What are the playing characteristics of an "intermediate" Par 4 hole?” (he did ask more but I liked this topic)

The lost hole in golf is becoming the mid length par four. The hole used to be anything from 360 yards through to around 400 yards. The hole represented the option to hit a three wood or even a long iron and the chance to hit anywhere from a wedge through to mid-iron depending on wind, your ability and the club selection from the tee. Often playing the same hole over the week leads to different club on just about every day depending on conditions.

Pine Valley has more short fours than you think, including the second

a mid-length par four considered one of the world's greatest holes.

One of the recent developments that I have seen is as more people see the merit of the drivable or very short par four – which is a great trend - they are filling the rest of the nine with almost exclusively 400 plus yard par fours to help keep the yardage up “to be a championship length. The hole that is getting lost in the shuffle is the former mid-length par four. Some architects think that at 400 yards you have a mid-length or even short par four, but I beg to differ on this idea. If you eliminate the most elite player in the game – the majority of the outstanding players are not flying the ball 350 yards as the designs suggest. I personally think notion of a continuous string of 400 plus yard holes eliminates too many decisions for all but the most elite of today’s game. I still think that it is time that architects’ ignore them and design for the vast majority of players and make the game more interesting with far more decisions available to the players.

Merion has a series of short and mid-length par fours from 7 through to 12 and it makes the course

So why should this hole make a bit of a comeback architecturally. First and foremost is the notion of options from the tee – that in recent times has become almost lost in modern design. Everything is set up for the driver hole after hole after hole. Boooorrrrring! Once the yardage is reduced down on a few more par fours, the player can hit whichever club is most appropriate whether for accuracy or to play for position. Options like this make the players think, when a player is allowed to think and plan, they are allowed to show their creativity.

Four holes under 400 yards including 3 mid-length par fours, on the hardest course in America!

If the player can play to optional spots on the fairway, it also means they can explore the possible advantages and disadvantages of playing to certain locations and access the resulting approach shots in. In other words they can “explore” the hole to try finding the best way to score. Learning a hole is a lot more interesting than just executing shots. Its time to drop the yardage obsession in the game and get on with encouraging interesting and entertaining holes – Oakmont had four holes under 400 yards and I don’t remember those holes being the weakness.

MacWood's Response to Old Tom's Family

I must say I didn’t expect to hear from Old Tom Morris, or even a distant descendant. Let me begin by saying I have great admiration for the man, and I hope you are not suggesting I am belittling his achievements. As I stated in my previous comments OTM was a great golfing figure, a true icon: the first great champion, the first modern greenkeeper, and the face of the game during an important thirty or forty year period. He also laid out a large number of golf courses, and no doubt was instrumental in the spread of the game. Does his prolific career laying out courses translate into a great golf architect or golf’s first great golf architect? If judged by the same standard we judge Colt, Thompson or Simpson, I say no.

Based upon my research his architectural accomplishments are grossly overstated today. OTM the great-golf-course-designer is a fairly recent phenomenon, it appears to have originated about twenty or twenty-five years ago with Cornish & Whitten, and has been thriving ever since. Today when one reads about OTM’s design excellence you often find impressive lists like this one: ‘Dornoch, Machrihanish, Elie, County Down, New Course, Portrush, Wallasey, Lahinch, Muirfield, Rosapenna and Nairn.’ Impressive no doubt, unfortunately it is also misleading, and largely inaccurate.

Your mention of his experimentation is a prime example of the legend overwhelming the facts. You cite the returning nine-hole loop as one of his ideas. If I’m not mistaken that idea was based upon the returning nine-hole loops at County Down and Muirfield, which we have subsequently learned were the result of a redesigns he had no part in. Was he the first to propose the standard 18-hole course? I don’t know the answer to that question. It seems plausible to me; on the other hand I know OTM was associated with quite few oddly numbered courses, including 12-hole Prestwick and Muirfield, which originally had 17 holes. So who knows? This is the first I’ve read that OTM should be credited with the dogleg. No comment.

Regarding my previous post I was not passing on my opinion, I was passing on information I had collected from numerous contemporaneous newspaper and magazine reports. In the absence of well-documented club records, these contemporaneous sources are the most reliable facts, with all due respect to family stories and club histories. The problem with some club histories is that they are often written decades after the fact, when memories dim, records are lost and ‘big name’ associations are desired. You yourself provided an excellent example of contemporaneous reports at Askernish. The club history had the facts wrong and Kroeger was unable to confirm a Morris connection, but you uncovered the newspaper article.

Where exactly OTM should be placed in the pantheon of great golf architects, I’m not certain. I find it curious that when St. Andrews commissioned two new courses in the 1890s - the New and the Jubilee - they turned to Hall Blyth and John Angus II respectfully, despite OTM being in-house. I think it would be wise to go back and read what Horace Hutchinson wrote about the criticisms of these early golf course makers, men like Tom Dunn and OTM, ‘A man is not to be criticized because he is not in advance of his time.’

By all means we should celebrate the life of this noble figure at the anniversary of his death, but lets also take this opportunity to look at his design contribution in a more realistic light while at the same time celebrating the contribution of men like Benjamin Hall Blyth, George Combe, Charles Gibson, James McKenna, Archie Simpson, and John Sutherland who history has not been so kind to.

Article on Restoration in Golf Course Architecture Magazine (from UK)

2007-07-30T08:06:00.000-04:00

Click on both sides to read the article

The Final List

2007-07-20T08:08:00.000-04:00

After some hindsight and rethinking, the list ended up as follows:

25. Mike Strantz
24. Herbert Leeds
23. Henry Frownes
22. Max Behr
21. Herbert Strong

20. Hugh Wilson
19. James Braid
18. Walter Travis
17. Old Tom Morris
16. George Crump

15. Herbert Fowler
14. William Langford
13. Tom Simpson
12. Willie Park Jr.
11. Charles Alison

10. William Flynn
9. Perry Maxwell
8. Seth Raynor
7. Stanley Thompson
6. Donald Ross

5. George Thomas
4. Charles Blair MacDonald
3. A. W. Tillinghast
2. H. S. Colt
1. Alister Mackenzie

Current Architects that Would Make the List Now - Part 2

2007-07-19T08:18:00.000-04:00

This will be the end of the series, but may bring the most discussion.

There are 100’s of architects practicing right now, but only two current architects would make my list if all work ended today and we took the time to evaluate careers. There may be others, but I would need more time to reflect on that.

Sand Hills 4th

Bill Coore’s place among the great architects is already guaranteed at this point. His work at Sand Hills became the defining course for this generation – the ripples still continue to influence even the biggest names in the business. Sand Hills was a great natural site featuring massive rolling hills, natural sand blowouts, and long views out to the horizon. When presented with the site, Coore realized that there were hundreds of natural holes in every direction. Rather than change the site or link the very best holes he could with long paths - he patiently walked and walked the site till he found a progression of 18 natural holes. He let the flow of the land lead him around the property. The blowouts became the primary strategy and the unique quality that sets this course apart from all others.

Friar's Head 10th

Coore recognized that these blowouts had the size and scale to compete with the wide open space and chose to swing his fairways around these features with large lateral movements. This approach was most appropriate since the wide lateral movement fit the monumental scale of the site. The course is strategically outstanding, sits in complete harmony with the scale of the site and blends perfectly into the surrounding landscape – think Prairie Dunes on a grand scale. There is more to Bill Coore than one project – in fact there is a string of great project – but this one does such a good job explaining why he is among the elite.

Old Sandwich by Coore

The second architect is far more controversial and the wild card. If he hasn’t said his goal is to be the greatest of his generation, he certainly gives you that impression. Doak – by plan or not - has followed Alister MacKenzie’s career path - from writing a book on golf architecture to working in foreign lands to have an international impact. Tom has spent time restoring MacKenzie’s courses and producing a book on the doctor’s life’s work as a tribute. He even shared his stance on criticism of other architects work - he can be quick to compliment a peer and just as quick to condemn work he doesn’t like. Since MacKenzie is often cited as the greatest architect of all time – what better role model to chose?

Pacific Dunes 13th

Tom came to prominence with his work at Pacific Dunes – while he did other wonderful courses – this was the one that brought all the attention and acclaim. In contrast to most new courses it was shorter, had a quirky routing, all while seeming to get the most out of the site. The course was beautiful, strategically compelling, the use of width with interior bunkering was a clever approach to high winds, the greens were more contoured than most modern courses, and it was down right fun to play. Tom had built a course that brought comparisons to Cypress Point something that must have brought him a great deal of personal satisfaction.

Barndougle Dunes 5th

Since I’m trying to avoid any negatives about living architects I choose not to write about why I didn’t consider a few big name architects.

The Final List: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/07/final-list.html

Current Architects that would make the List - Part 1 - Pete Dye

2007-07-18T08:28:00.000-04:00

There are at least three architects currently practicing that I would chose to make my list. The first and most obvious is Pete Dye - who while not retired - is at the very end of his long and illustrious career. I’m not going to place any of the architects but with Pete I’ll give an indication of where I see him.

To me Pete’s career is defined by two periods, the Early Years and the Modern Years. The Early Years featured courses that were largely built to the lay of the land and were heavily influenced by the links courses and architecture of the British Isles. Dye’s work was as much a reflection to his experiences at the famous links, as it were a reaction against the architecture that was being built at the time. Pete’s use of sod walls, railroad ties and other unique elements all made early appearance long before becoming trademarks to his work, but more often it was the inclusion of subtle landforms and small contours that were the real key to his greatest early holes. While he paid homage to the style of golf that he loved from overseas, he also displayed his own unique sense of humour with how the techniques were applied. Many of these ideas would become the basis of his style throughout his career - others would come and go depending on what inspired him on each project. What I admire most of his early work is the restraint that he showed and the clever use of the native ground to effect strategy. What sets him apart from most other great architects was his key role in changing the direction of architecture at that time. His work in the early years became the very foundation of the Minimalist Movement that would emerge at the end of the century – ironically long after he himself abandoned the very notions that it is founded upon.

The Golf Club

The Later Years began with his involvement in the TPC at Sawgrass and culminated in Whistling Straights. Pete took many of his early ideas about design that at this point had been tested against great players. He used this knowledge against the players by adding his latest ideas (particularly things they didn’t like or understand) to a tournament course. He employed all his skills as a builder to overcome what was largely a nothing site and eventually crafted a complex thought provoking and strategic layout to test the best the players had to offer. The TPC was brash and bold, full of difficulty through the dramatic use of water, wild green contours, nutmeg grinders (quickly removed), severe bunkering, intentional blindness, and a good dose of intimidation. He not only caught the player’s attention (and outrage), but captivated the public to the point that Pete Dye was quickly the most recognized golf architect in the game.

The TPC was a high point in his career and a flashpoint for a dramatic change in his style. He was offered a quick succession of projects, with each owner looking for the next TPC at Sawgrass – or even something more outrageous if it could be had. Pete became well sought out and well compensated with his pick of projects and great budgets. I think he also became a bit of a victim of his own success. Each owner wanted to outdo the last and each project became bigger and bolder to the point that Pete was reshaping everything and taking more and more architectural risks. There are a lot of great holes and some really good courses but also a few true clunkers along the way. Pete’s courses were always solid due to the underlying strategy that is built largely on carry angles and options to attack – but outwardly many of these courses look over-shaped and overdone. The culmination is Whistling Straights - such a great course on so many levels and yet so overdone at the same time.

Pete Dye was the greatest architect of a generation and is easily in the top 10 for his innovation, vision, strategic genius and influence on the future. He is without a doubt the father of the Minimalist Movement and that’s worth a few points alone too.

Current Architects That Would Make the List: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/07/current-architects-that-would-make-list.html

Architect #1 Alister MacKenzie

2007-07-17T07:57:00.000-04:00

Best Course: Cypress Point

Other notable work: Royal Melbourne, Augusta National, Crystal Downs (w/Maxwell), Pasatiempo,

Remodelling Work: Pebble Beach, Kingston Heath, St. Andrew’s Old, Lahinch

Overview: In 1907, there opened up an opportunity to build a new course called Alwoodley near Leeds. Alister Mackenzie offered his services and presented the group with a layout and series of drawings for the course. The founding members called in Harry Colt to offer his valued opinion. Colt walked the property and even stayed at MacKenzie's house. Colt largely agreed with the routing and general layout that MacKenzie had already devised. Eventually MacKenzie was left to build the course on his own and his career had begun.

Alwoodley

Colt eventually invited Mackenzie to join his firm and while they made an impressive team, there has been some evidence of tension between the two great architects. It is no surprise that MacKenzie would eventually move on, but that was after MacKenzie went to Australia on Colt’s behalf and would change the face of architecture in Australia.

One of the biggest breaks for Mackenzie came in 1914 when he garnered first prize in the Lido Competition for the best designed two-shot hole. His par four featured 5 alternative routes and multiple play options and was eventually adapted for the 18th at Lido Golf Club. This brought a great deal of attention on both sides of the ocean since it was judged by Horace Hutchinson, Bernard Darwin and CB Macdonald.

Mackenzie’s career was full of many great commissions all over the world culmination with the greatest of all at Augusta National where he was paired with Bobby Jones to design a course that was based upon the playing style and experience of the Old Course.

16th at Pasatiempo

Praise for the work: MacKenzie could do it all. His work has so much variety from the strategies to the artistry that he almost defies description as an architect. His routings featured holes that very few would dare try, he almost seemed to revel in the oddest bits of land and there possibilities for holes. Some of his short fours have pushed the envelope well beyond the norms, yet have yielded some of the most fascinating and confounding great holes in golf. MacKenzie reveled in holes like the Road hole that are too tough, recognizing that greatness came from pushing the limits rather than finding convention. I always loved his bitter disappointment at the lack of controversy at Cypress Point feeling that controversy was a clear indicator of excellence

Every part of his designs pushed the envelope from the wildly contoured greens through to spectacular bold bunkering that framed his strategies. MacKenzie loved to present multiple options from hole routes to approach styles, leaving the player often to choose where they cam in from and what style of approach to hit. He generally presented the player with choices but occasionally pushed the player to hit one great dramatic shot too.

In my experience only a handful of architects have been able to create bunkers that blur the line between strategy and art and the greatest of all was Alister MacKenzie. He was able to combine artistic flair, with scale, a little intimidation, a tremendous amount of strategy and the greatest blending of grades around bunkers any architect has ever done to build the best bunkers the game has ever seen.

Criticisms: There are a small few that question some of his more unusual holes as being a bit too quirky, but there are very few that can find much fault in his work, particularly with the list of great course he has designed. The only one question I can bring up is the limited time on site at Royal Melbourne and Crystal Downs where another architect largely provided the bulk of the field work. His Australian credits are long, yet his trip was very short.

Royal Melbourne

Great Quotes: 'It frequently happens the best holes give rise to the most bitter controversy. It is largely a question of the spirit in which the problem is approached, depending on the player. Whether he looks at it from the 'card and pencil' point of view and condemns anything that disturbs his steady series of 3’s or 4’s, or whether he approaches it in the 'spirit of adventure.'

"It is essential that [the architect] should eliminate his own game entirely, and look upon all construction work in a purely impersonal manner. He should be able to put himself in the position of the best player that ever lived, and at the same time be extremely sympathetic towards the beginner and long handicap player. "

“It is much too large a subject to go into the placing of hazards, but I would like to emphasis a fundamental principle. It is that no hazard is unfair wherever it is placed.”

“A hazard placed in the exact position where a player would naturally go is frequently the most interesting situation, as then special effort is needed to get over or avoid it”

“No hole is a good hole unless it has one or more hazards in the direct line of the hole”

17th at Cypress Point

ress Point
I choose this one largely because I have not played Royal Melbourne. Cypress Point represents the greatest transition work in the game. Moving from the dunes to the forest, back to the open dunes land and eventually to the ocean is done so seamlessly that you barely notice the change of scenery. The entire course holds together cohesively despite the fact that the setting is in constant change. The way MacKenzie uses the bunkers in particular to pull everything together is magnificent. I love the way bunker and dune often has no definitive start and end, all great examples of site directed architecture which was most appropriate at Cypress Point.

5th at Crystal Downs

: He is the clearest example that greatness comes from pushing the boundaries. MacKenzie pushes me personally to explore the unusual bits of land in quest of unique hole opportunities that I may otherwise avoid. He challenges me to push my limits in the type of holes I will present and the strategies that they may require – holes like the 5th at Crystal Downs prove a hole may have no strategic answer – and that itself may lead to greatness. He never settled for a conventional approach in anything he designed, from the contours of the greens to the styling of his bunkers he continued to push the envelope to push his own art. The wonderful thing about all of this is the strategies that unduly his courses are every bit as good as the strategies employed by Colt or Thomas, but the visual presentation was so much more.

Current Architects That Would Make the List: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/07/current-architects-that-could-make-list.html

Architect #2 Harry Shapland Colt

2007-07-16T08:17:00.000-04:00

Best Course: Royal Portrush

Other notable work: Hamilton, Toronto, Sunningdale (New), Swinley Forrest, St. George’s Hill, Rye, (advising Crump) Pine Valley

Remodelling Work: Sunningdale Old, Muirfield

Overview: Colt was originally a lawyer by training but was far more interested in the pursuit of golf. He was one of the founders of Rye and remained as the honorary secretary for many years after. He became the first secretary at Sunningdale, which turned out to be a position that would help him make important contacts for future work. Colt also made continual improvements to Sunningdale throughout the years.

Just before the First World War, Colt became a full time golf architect and one of the first (if not the first) architects who was not a golf professional first. Colt concentrated his efforts in the UK, with a mixture of new commissions and a great deal of renovation to older layouts. As his reputation quickly grew many more inquiries came from further afar - at first the British Isles, then the mainland of Europe, eventually North America, much later Australia and the Far East.

Sunningdale Old #12

While Colt made a series of trips to North America from 1911 to 1915, he would choose to stay closer to home and mainly work throughout the United Kingdom and the European mainland. He would instead trust a series of partners with much of the foreign work. With Charles Alison taking on most of the work leading to his long and storied career representing Colt in many parts of the world. Alison’s impact in the Far East was the watershed moment for all future Japanese architecture. Likewise, Alister Mackenzie’s trip to Australia was the trip that shaped Australian golf architecture. Colt himself was the key influence to Belgium and Holland.

I feel comfortable to argue that Colt was the most important influence in early architecture. While Park and others represent key moments in architectural development, it was Colt who was able to put together a style and technique that quite simply shaped all future generations of golf course architecture. Almost all the great architects profiled were influenced through his writings and by visiting the courses that he had designed. Harry Colt made golf course architecture a profession, from the way he attacked the projects he had to the way he conducted a business. He became the standard that we all have worked from since.

Toronto Golf Club #6

Praise for the work: Colt felt his courses must be part of the countryside, residing in, rather than imposing upon the land. He suggested they should also be given a chance to grow into their surroundings and become part of the countryside itself. That is quite likely why Colt was one of the first to suggest planting with his courses. It also explains why his holes feel like they were found rather than produced, even when he was required to make change to the landscape. His early holes usually lead you in gently and he was one of the first to openly suggest the use of all clubs be an important requirement in design. He concentrated on the course as a whole trying to balance out the lengths of holes, although given the opportunity he would often select particularly appealing points for par threes and route holes to accommodate those outstanding opportunities.

Rye Golf Club

He did not set out his bunkers to penalize an errant shot, but rather to challenge the skills of a better player. He was one of the first to set up and defend angles of attack perfecting the idea of the carry angle in the process. He was one of the earliest architects to see the intellectual side of design and would lay out his courses to test a players decision making as much as his conviction. While some of his bunkers have scale and character, much of his work featured smaller pot style traps that were often deep and tough to extricate yourself from. He certainly felt that a player taking a risk was justified to lose a shot when they failed to achieve the task. At the same time he would provide plenty more opportunities for them to run the same risk, so that if they could achieve the task, they could make a shot up later in the round.

Criticisms: There is a criticism that Colt has designed a collection of great courses, but it has been suggested that he lacks that one standout course that makes you say nobody else could have done better. Some point to Muirfield as the one, but others find it lacking. Some suggest Royal Portrush is the course, but others think it reputation comes more from difficulty than it does from architectural merit. A few even point to his role at Pine Valley, but the early drawings seem to indicate that Crump was still the key figure. Colt may lack that one seminal project, but his body of work is so strong that he earns the respect of all architects none the less.

St. George's Hill

Great Quotes: Immediately when we attempt to standardize sizes, shapes, and distances we lose more than half the pleasure of the game.

Favourite Course: Royal Portrush
I will say up front that I do struggle with the level of difficulty currently presented off the tee by the nasty fescue that borders the fairways, but strategically the course is brilliant. The course features wonderful angles of opportunity from the tee through to the green. The bunkering challenges you to flirt for a better approach but sharply penalizes a miss. Colt managed to the mix the lengths on all the threes, fours and fives so that the variety is stunning and the hole types are just as varied. The greens feature wonderful rolling contours full of delicate pin positions and feeding slopes that make for entertaining putting throughout. There is not a weak hole, just a lack of dunes land at the end.

Sunningdale New #5

What I take from him: I’ve always felt that Colt’s use of bunkers in the fairway is without peer. He has the ability to defend a line with one, or introduce a series of bunkers that force decisions. He used every technique from flanking to diagonal through to interior – his strength was placing no limitations on what he would do.Colt represents a style of architecture that is both challenging and comfortable, where depending on the game the player has that day, they can either add or reduce risk accordingly. I’ve always felt the writings of Max Behr explain the ideal game, and that the architecture of Harry Colt show you examples of it in the ground.

Next Architect: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/07/architect-1-alister-mackenzie.html

Looking at the list in Hindsight

2007-07-11T08:34:00.000-04:00

I will finish up on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

It will be a while before I consider another blog series as involved as this one. I’m finding I’m much too busy with work to continue at this pace. I’m not sure what I will write about coming up and I’m considering a “best of” week to create a break for me and to highlight a few of the best series from the past.

I have some hindsight I would like to offer on the list:

I definitely think placing Trent Jones in was a mistake and at the same time I felt leaving Frownes out was an oversight. With both Wilson and Crump on the list, it is hard to justify Frownes being left off. The other four are still good choices.

25. Mike Strantz
24. Herbert Leeds
23. Henry Frownes
22. Max Behr
21. Herbert Strong

The Old Tom debate was fascinating. I knew I was going out on a limb with Old Tom, but I felt the early influence was crucial to the development of golf architecture. It turns out that I may have given him too much credit for existing work which in most cases has turned out to be another architect’s work. The more I read, the more information I received, the more I felt I had misjudged his role in the development of some key courses. The influence is still there, and some great work exists, but I think it is not quite as significant as I once thought.

20. Hugh Wilson
19. James Braid
18. Walter Travis
17. Old Tom Morris
16. George Crump
15. Herbert Fowler

Fowler was the man I didn’t know and the more I read after I posted the more I realized I had sold him a little short. I find I’m drawn to his architecture the more time I spend looking at courses that he has done, and I’m quite convinced that a visit to Eastward Ho would also have a huge impact on what I think of Fowler. The rest is a list of architects who have all influenced what I think about design with Maxwell and Langford being more recent fascinations.

14. William Langford
13. Tom Simpson
12. Willie Park Jr.
11. Charles Alison
10. William Flynn
9. Perry Maxwell

People have questioned my “anti-bias” against Thompson, but I’m quite certain I have his place right. One friend felt his best 5 were better than the likes of Tillinghast but I don’t agree. I would also counter that his next five can’t touch Tillie’s so it is a matter of where that line is drawn. Ross may confound the people off who think he should have been one or two - I like his work a lot - but I don’t see the genius that other people do.

8. Seth Raynor
7. Stanley Thompson
6. Donald Ross

Thomas’s remaining work is too strong to ignore. Macdonlad built the best course of the bunch, but then repeated himself in work that followed. Tillinghast certainly had the depth of exceptional work that few can touch. These are all great and gifted men whose work you should seek out every chance you get.

5. George Thomas
4. Charles Blair MacDonald
3. A. W. Tillinghast

The final two on Monday and Tuesday – The number one architect was the easiest selection to make. I will post a final revised list at the ned too.

Next Architect: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/07/architect-2-harry-shapland-colt.html

Architect #3 Albert Warren Tillinghast

2007-07-10T07:32:00.000-04:00

Best Course: Winged Foot

Other notable work: San Francisco, Baltimore (Five Farms),Ridgewood, Bethpage, Fenway, Philadelphia Cricket Club,

Remodelling Work: Quaker Ridge, Scarboro,

Overview: A. W. Tillinghast was born in Philadelphia in 1874, the only child of a prosperous family. He became captivated by the game of golf in the 1890s, and made annual pilgrimages to Scotland where he took lessons from Old Tom Morris – one of golf’s greatest icons. Tillinghast was a good enough player to compete, playing in early US Amateurs and Opens. His golf architecture career began when he was asked to lay out a course for friends on their farm at Shawnee-on-the-Delaware. It was an instant success. He immediately went into the golf design business.

18th at Winged Foot

For nearly 20 years he ran a very successful design business, until the bottom fell out after the market crash of 1929. He designed approximately 60 courses and remodeled or expanded an equal number during this time. Because of his skills and social connections, he acquired more than his share of great projects and left behind a handful of courses that are considered among the finest in golf. Some of his best include 36 holes at Winged Foot, both Baltusrol layouts, the San Francisco Golf Club, the East Course of the Baltimore Country Club, Somerset Hills in New Jersey, 27 holes of Ridgewood (also in New Jersey), and the Black Course at Bethpage on Long Island. He had a great run of courses and success until the Great Depression ruined his business. He worked for the PGA of America to keep his head above water, but eventually became totally disenchanted with golf. He and his wife moved to California to set up an antiques shop. With limited success, he attempted to re-establish himself with Billy Bell, but never achieved the same excellence. He died in 1942.

The enduring image of Tillinghast is that of the impeccably dressed architect poring over the plans for a golf course. He enjoyed being out “in the dirt” relying on inspiration to fine tune the details of each hole as it emerged from the landscape. There are great stories of Tillinghast sitting under the shade of a tree, bottle in hand, calling out directions to his workmen. He undoubtedly was as colorful as he was talented.

Praise for the work: Tillinghast was the first designer who consciously set out to create golf holes that were visually attractive. He helped transform golf course architecture from its roots in nature to a greater art form. Tillinghast drew on the principles of landscape design, engineering and art to transform a property into a spectacular playing field. His routings looked to the prominent feature of the property for inspiration, but he when faced with a featureless section of the site he immediately applied his imagination to create an entire green site from scratch or use an imaginative bunker scheme to make a landing area really interesting.

The grass faced bunkers at Five Farms

Tillinghast was one of golf’s great chameleons changing his style and character on a regular basis. When you contrast the stark grass slopes of Five Farms against the huge faces and flashes at Winged Foot and then contrast that with the lacy edged bunkers on a massive scale at San Francisco, you realize Tillinghast had no limits on what he could do. The greatest compliment I can give Tillinghast is that a number of his greatest courses are only on average sites. Winged Foot for example is a fine site but nothing particularly special, yet through the green sites that he created and the challenge they present he has crafted one of the toughest and most interesting pieces of architecture that architects cab study.

Criticisms: I can’t give Tillinghast a free pass for the work he did on behalf of the PGA. While many courses were lucky to get his advice, but others were hurt through his efforts too, including a few of the great architects in history where he removed features or changed entire holes through his advice. The Sahara was a cross-hazard. While I understand and personally enjoy the concept, it is the type of feature that in many instances only really penalizes the poor player.

Great Quotes: “The merit of any hole is not judged by length but rather by its interest and its variety as elective play is apparent. It isn’t how far but how good”
“I am thoroughly convinced that many of our country’s courses are hurt tremendously by stretching holes out for no other purpose than to bolster up the scorecard distances and figures. There seems to exist a feeling that the collection of par figures must determine the worth of the courses. Let us remember that in golf we do not measure pleasure with a yard stick.”

The 7th and 8th at San Francisco

Favourite Course: San Francisco
San Francisco is built to a monumental scale, which helped fit the site perfectly since there were originally such long views all around the course that competed with his architecture. It would be overly simple to say that Tillinghast increased the bunkers to enormous sizes to help fill the space, but it is more than that. What Tillinghast did was take everything to epic proportions so that nothing would get dwarfed by the space. The bunkers are obviously large, but the mounding and fairway widths are much larger than convention too. Tillinghast was also smart enough to intentional blend the bunkering on the 9th and 10th so that they appear from both side to be an extension of the bunkering for each hole. This essentially helps create enough size and expanse within the bunkering to create definition, but more important balance with the landscape.

The 10th at Winged Foot

What I take from him: Understanding the beauty of scale and space can lead to breathtaking architecture. Tillinghast teaches us all about scale and the need to spend extra time getting the sweep and drama into the bunkering in particular. You must be painstaking in your details, since everything gets magnified by the open space. Only a confident creative hand that is capable of the broadest strokes can succeed on this level.

Looking at the List with Hindsight: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/07/looking-at-list-in-hindsight.html