Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Bill Coore at Barnbougle

Captain Porks,

Crenshaw didnt come to irian jaya either, Bill coore went there twice. Rod Whitman was the guy responisble for that one. Not all jobs are equal.

Moth

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / California Golf Courses - Must see

More pics of Tobacco Road if you have them please! Those green contours are incredible!
Thx

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Cypress Point Tour

QUOTE: golfer69 @ Mar 8 2007, 01:58 PM

Any truth in the rumout that there's now a sign on the front gate banning red headed boofheads ?

No mate they just banned ALL boofhead QUEENSLANDERS - which kind of screws up your chances of playing there!

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Cypress Point Tour

Thanks for the pics FL - they are great. I played Cypress about 5 or 6 years ago and it is interesting how the bunkers on #2 have changed over that time - they were 3 pot bunkers when I played there (did I mention I played there). Nice to have some digital pics of the place since all the pics I took were on film. Did I mention I played there?

Topic: Golf Architecture / Succession planning for retiring architects

QUOTE: Horatio Hornswaggler @ Feb 27 2007, 06:40 PM

Mothman, thanks for the reply.

Isn't it a bit early to give Nicklaus the tick here? Maybe Jackie Jnr can hang off his coat tails while the old man is there but don't you think it will be a different story once Jack Snr is gone?

Is Rulewich the guy who mangled Yale and has now been moved on?

Hawtree is the one family dynasty I thought of initially along with the Jones boys, Rees and Bobby. Any others?

HH.

Horatio Old Chum,

I didnt give Nicklaus the tick - just said that is what he is TRYING to do - whether its a success only time will tell. The Jones dynasty stops at Rees and RTJ2 I assume (not sure they have kids in the business).

Re Rulewich I prefer not to comment on courses I have never seen, maybe he did and maybe he didnt (and maybe what happened was dictated by the committee etc) but the facts are he is very experienced and did most of RTJ's seniors work certainly over the last 20 years of his work.

Not sure dynastys in any sort of creative business are a good idea anyway since USUALLY the creative genius resides in the first mover.

Cheers,
Moth

Topic: Golf Architecture / The worlds most dangerous golf hole

QUOTE: have clubs will travel @ Feb 26 2007, 05:14 PM

*I recall sitting at the lights at South Dowling st (and perhaps lachlan ave, but not sure) years ago and watching as a wayward ball come from Moore Park GC and bounced 4 times across the 6 lanes of traffic - hit the wall of the old glass factory - and then bounced back across the other side of the road without hitting a single car. Whilst it wasn't peak hour, thats some feat on what has always been a busy road

Was that a Saturday cause I think that may have been me?!

Topic: Golf Architecture / Succession planning for retiring architects

Good questions - look at how Nicklaus is handling it - introducing a range of "name" options from his firm, from Nicklaus Signature through Jack Jnr etc to Nicklaus Design as well as doing work under other signatures. I am sure he is doing all that to leave something for his kids rather than just to make more money.

I am sure it is also question that guys working for Palmer think about a lot. Look at Roger Rulewich - worked for RTJ snr for many years and although he has a new firm I doubt his fees and jobs are quite as exciting as when he was with RTJ. Also some of the guys that left RTJ2 a few years back are not as successful as they may have thought they would be despite their vast experience (with the exception of Kyle Phillips).

As far as firms go I believe Hawtree has been arounda few generations.

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / If you had a spare $15,000 cash to spend on golf club membership

here in Singapore 15K will not get you a look in at a goat track. A few courses start at 30K going up to 180-200K. For 15K you can probably get a cheap set of Honmas or S-Yards though. You guys in Oz (especially Melbourne) are so spoiled for membership - its fun watching you quibble over the price of membership at the National considering the quality of the land and courses.

Topic: Ask Golf Guru - Golf Instruction / Training Aids - Any recommended?

QUOTE: tubeseeker @ Dec 11 2006, 01:05 PM

thank you
would you mind going into a little detail on what are the advantages? what will this make you do?

Should make you close your eyes when you swing I would think!

Topic: Ask Golf Guru - Golf Instruction / Training Aids - Any recommended?

Theres a lot of golf training aids around - wieghted clubs, hinged clubs etc. Are any of them any good? - I have tried the simple momentus weighted wedge (which you can use to hit balls) - and it seems like a good idea from a tempo standpoint. Is this one a good idea or are there any other standout aids which really do help and not hinder proper swing mechanics??

Topic: Golf Architecture / How close to a fairway is too close for a new housing development?

QUOTE: golfer69 @ Nov 28 2006, 03:46 PM

Mothy,

Is 65m your "recommendation" or "consideration" ?

A considered recommendation of approximate guidlelines. Non-binding of course.

Topic: Golf Architecture / How close to a fairway is too close for a new housing development?

Thats criminal - or at least professionally irresponsible. If you bought a house there you would be able to sue (when the invevitable balls starting hammering your house) since they have not done their study on setbacks. Any golf course architect or even any golfer would tell them that what they are planning is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

By the way - there are no rules (since nothing is "100% safe" when it comes to golf) but rules of thumb. I would clarify Golfer69's post by saying in the landing area 65m from the centrelines to the property boundary is normally reasonable - but you should setback the actual building another 15 metres or so from the boundary. Consult the marsh or watson or papworth office on the coast for an opinion I would say.

Topic: Golf Architecture / Awards

QUOTE: Ben @ Nov 27 2006, 01:55 PM

and who invited you to this discussion? If you cannot rag on Cashy or Titthers, then please refrain from posting as this is not the appropiate forum for it.

Now now Ben - I am just holding you to the same high standards you set old Tithers. You made a sweeping (and wrong IMO) statement and I called you on it. Nothing more to it than that. Maybe you should start a thread called the "Rag on The Cashmores" thread or "Slam TWP" thread and I will know to stay out.

Topic: Golf Architecture / Awards

QUOTE: Ben @ Nov 27 2006, 12:39 PM

Tony,

Again you've attempted to pull out the punches and have missed the mark.

Dunes and 13B didn't win awards purely because of their design, they won the awards because the people who run the courses have kept them in excellent playing conditions. If 13B had the worst grounds crew in the world running it then it would never be given an award as the course would be in such a bad playing condition.

And again, these are not awards that are awarded to the Cashmores. Please keep to the topic else your application for mod status may not get passed

You could say this about every good golf course - if maintenance goes out the window or down the plug - so does the reputation/ranking of the course. Royal Melbourne in crap condition would be just another course to 99.9% of golfers with only the architecture savant amongst us being able to determine its architectural pedigree. So don't just say the maintenace of The Dunes is solely repsonsible for its reputation.

And I disagree with your premise - if the course wins an award (generally its said for its design even if maint has a big input) then the architect can rightfully claim it...there are after all very few (if any) awards in the world specifically geared towards the golf course architect (I am yet to see Doak win an award fro Best Architect in The World although few would begrudge him being called an award winning designer). Most awards are for the course only.

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Warragul

Shocker - Paul Glover must be a main roads engineer right? Definately a hole where a re-routing (or change to a par 3) was necessary.

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Which course is this?

Thats a nice pic - is it a computer illustration by the resident wiz - Wayne Hewitt??

I'm not going near those marketing statements - having had to write a few myself I know what a crock they are and what a pain in the arse to write - although having said that I would say Tony would be better than most at giving something a good verbal polishing (no double entendre intended)!

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Could you design an Australian top 100 course?

"Assume you have good contractors at your disposal who will be able to construct it and drain it properly and the like, and the budget would at least be average for a new course, no housing corridors or other site issues blah blah. In other words, remove variables other than your guess at your ability/good fortune to design a good course."

So anything goes - apart from reality?!

Topic: Golf Architecture / Golf Course 'Engineering'

QUOTE: Wilksie @ Oct 9 2006, 10:04 PM

Can I judge this one then?

Sure, go ahead - looks like crap to me. Also in China?

Topic: Golf Architecture / Golf Course 'Engineering'

QUOTE: kpac @ Oct 9 2006, 02:17 PM

I also am making no reference to the work in the photo's, from looking at it, it could turn into a nice coarse...

What i mean is how sad it is to build arbituary land forms for the sake of making an interesting golf coarse. Sites suit certain coarses (in my opinion) I have the opinion that these "resort" coarses are just another way of saying, they are too lazy to make a quality coarse with what we had, so we'll manufature, a hill and ditch to captivate everyones interest.
For me:
A flat site should in turn be a flat coare, the interest can be in the vegitation or narrow fairway of hard greens, or length or an number of other elements, the coarse architects (and i think that word is used lightly) role should be to USE the site, and design the coarse within natures limits.
A very hilly site can have a coarse on it, and there a plenty of examples around spain and portugal, and i don have a problem with small areas being cut into or flattend, but to ignor what is there and bring in tonnes of soil and, excavate hills, i think is just an easy option out.
Golf heritage is a challenge of nature to the golfer, this is far more meaningfull than any arbituary fancy design.

KPac - I know where you are coming from, truly.

Here however are the facts for developing courses in China/Korea - by and large the only sites available for golf in these places at the moment (legally) are sites that are not suitable for agricultural use - that means either hills (verry hilly) or reclaimed land (very flat).

Flat is not always flat if you know what I mean - on a site where there is a little undulation or natural features of course go with a subtle design that builds upon those features (like C&C did at Walking Stick in Arizona). However the sites I am talking about are DEAD MOTHERLESS FLAT - i.e. zero elevation change, and have no natural features or vegetation. You would have to be an idiot not to do earthworks to create an interesting course. Even Doak on his course in Texas moved a bunch of earth in these circumstances.

On mountainous sites I am not saying to not be creative, but again if you are building a course it needs to be playable and accessible. Again, only an idiot would not do substantial earthworks in this case to make the course playable. What is the point in moving only a little earth if the end result is a course that cannot be played or accessed?? Also, no one is bringing in trucks of material = they are cutting and filling within the boundaries of the site - guys that do it well can hide where the new cuts and fills tie into the exisiting slopes, however the hillier the sites get the more difficult this is to do.

Topic: Golf Architecture / Golf Course 'Engineering'

QUOTE: kpac @ Oct 9 2006, 12:20 PM

how sad!

Don't believe this to be essential in MOST circumstances, but would conseed that the <u>easiest</u> option is usually to draw up your golf coarse and get trucks full of dirt to make it happen. So sad.

Sad - how so? Its a fact that some sites just are not suitable for golf in their existing state. It would be great if all sites were good for golf - but that is not so.

There are 2 choices, not to build at all - or do major earthworks to make the site suitable. The choice of whether to build or not is generally not down to the architect, but the client based on his budget and percieved ability to turn a profit. Government also has a say in stopping unsiutable projects but of course in Asia its usually the $$ talking. Of course the architect has the choice whether to take the job or not based on his own thoughts, ethics etc. - but should be under no illusions, just because he doesnt take the job does not mean it will not get built - perhaps worse by someone else.

The key in succeeding with the second option is to somehow work it so that you cannot tell that major earthworks have been done. Not always easy that but can be done sometimes.

By the way I am not in any way defending the works shown in the photos - just saying don't judge them till its done.

Topic: Golf Architecture / Golf Course 'Engineering'

Wilksie,

With the greatest of respect - how do you "work with the natural contours" on a site like that. Have you any experience on working on extreme sites like that one (looks like southen china somewhere)? If you get a site like that in the mountains you have to move a bunch of dirt to make it work - and its hard to judge the final product until towards the end (the bulk earthworks shots you took mean nothing at this point). Mission Hills by the way moved about 25 million m3 to build their last 5 courses which although may not be world beaters are still pretty good solutions on extreme sites and all get plenty of traffic.

Agree that some, perhaps most sites are worthy of the "work with the natural contours" approach, but others require more of the "blow the living sh*t out of it and start again" approach.

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Henley Update

QUOTE: troyfunz @ Oct 4 2006, 11:08 AM

Yeah I thought he look thinner than his photo on here and he also didn't where the yellow jumper which I was hoping for.

Thinner...and no yellow jumper...wtf. Are you sure it was Cashy?? Did he have a small dog with him? Was he playing the piano? Sounds like an imposter to me!

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Who would you give the 2nd course at Barnbougle to?

QUOTE: MatthewM @ Sep 4 2006, 09:37 PM

Mothy,

Do you think that selection on such projects is a self-perpetuating cycle?
Choosing an architect who has the runs on the board,
and is experienced in working within dunes land, does make sense.

Surely such archies possess skills which those who have predominantly
worked on flater sites. I'd imagine it would be a far more difficult task,
and that the hours and honour you mention may be insufficient in the
absence of specific skills. After all, different auditors specialise in different
business sectors and different size companies (to use your example).

Maybe that's what JJJ is getting at?

MM

Absolutely - and if I was a developer I would look at someone with a successful track record on that sort of land first...and depending on fee (which can be considerable) that would drive my decision making.

However, what I was disagreeing with was JJJ's inference that because an architect does not have experience in that sort of land he could not do a good job -which was the inference JJJ was making (I think).

I believe there are many young and not so young passionate architects out there that would love to get their hands on a great piece of land and who would rise to the occassion and produce something special by letting the land do the talking - even Tom Doak had to get some good land at some time to show what he is capable of. Tom Doak also would be the first to say don't pidgeon hole me (Doak) and I am sure he is on the lookout for an absolutely terrible crap piece of land somewhere to show what he can do (and no I don't think the Texas job was quite crap enough - soil looked OK, no marine mud and no high water table).

Oh and I also think that working on creating great golf courses out of great sites is absolutely easier than creating good golf courses out of crap land because in one your imagination has to create everything and in the other its all there for you to find. Of course crap courses out of both are the easiest!

Topic: Your Favourite Golf Courses / Who would you give the 2nd course at Barnbougle to?

QUOTE: John J Jones @ Aug 28 2006, 09:38 PM

Andrew,

I would worry that someone who hasn't worked in dunes before might not make the most of it. Most archies today are used to cut and fill on crap land and imposing themselves, very few would just go with the flow.

JJ

Sorry John but thats just a bullshit statement!

Sure most archies are used to working with crap land - its all you get for the most part. Given a piece of land like Barnbougle all but the most cynical architect would do everything possible to work with the land and not impose their wills. Most would consider it an honour and would put in the appropriate hours on site. I am a huge Doak fan - but figure if I could just get my hands on a great site (and perhaps more importantly) get a client who shares the vision, I could also build a course as good as his - assuming I could also engage a bunch of talented associates and put them on the payroll.

Saying architects who work on flat crappy land cannot work on great sites is like saying an auditor who does the books for crooked companies could not do the books for honest ones (or something like that).

Topic: Golf Architecture / employment/careers in golf course design/architecture

Ronald Fream doesn't play. I don't know of many others who don't play, Muirhead did'nt I think - most architects play in some way or another.