What it Takes to Work with a Tour Pro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.