1st (new) blog post in 2 long is now up at jeffmingay.com

Alas! This blog has officially moved to Mingay Golf Course Design's new web site at jeffmingay.com, where all previous entries at this blog site are now archived as well.

Thanks for your continued interest in MGCD. We look forward to seeing you at jeffmingay.com

Development of a bunker #oakvillegolfclub

Proposed location ~ March 2012.
Click on all images to enlarge.

Rough shape.

Field sketch, illustrating proposed detail.

Done ~ June 2012.

A few thoughts on Olympic-Lake.

During my last visit to the Olympic Club, in January 2009,
the new par 3 8th hole was under construction.
Click on image to enlarge.

The Olympic Club's Lake course, where the 2012 United States Open will be decided today, isn't my favourite. Granted, I'm a bit spoiled. During the same trip to northern California, back in January 2009, I also visited San Francisco Golf Club, The California Golf Club, Pasatiempo, Cypress Point and Pebble Beach. By comparison, Olympic-Lake was underwhelming.

I really liked the tawny presentation of the course as seen on TV yesterday; there seems to be a very nice texture about the Lake course this week. The large cypress trees, and incredibly unique clubhouse overlooking the 8th and 18th greens are awesome too. And, as usual, I also appreciate some of the thoughtful elements the U.S. Golf Association's Mike Davis has incorporated into the course. Take some of the typically un-US Open-like short grass areas around greens for example. Saturday's 107-yard set-up at the par 3 15th hole was pretty cool, too.

But, in general, the course architecture and set-up at Olympic-Lake do nothing for me. The course is very one-dimensional - which is why it's a brilliant venue for a traditional 'US Open test', I guess. Most fairways are way too narrow relative to the slopes and pace of the course. All of those 'reverse camber' holes, where the fairways bend in the opposite direction of the general pitch of the land, get tiring after awhile, too. And, the short par 4 18th epitomizes the one-dimensional nature of the course. It's an 'over-rated' hole, talked about more because of history than architectural merit. I'm sure someone in contention later today will be playing their second shot to the home green from a divot in the ridiculously narrow 18th fairway, where there's really only 'one place' to drive the ball.

Olympic-Lake is 'hard', yeah - only two of the world's best golfers are currently under par after 54 holes this week. But does that make it a great course? Not in my opinion.

I'm a big fan of Mike Davis. Again, he's done some very thoughtful stuff in setting up some of America's best courses for US Open competition in recent years. As Davis knows, it's way too easy to make a course 'hard', and much better - for spectators and competitors alike - when a course simply plays 'interesting'. There's not enough 'interesting' about Olympic-Lake this week, in my opinion, unfortunately. And because of this fact, I suspect we might see another Jack Fleck beat Ben Hogan today; or another Billy Casper defeat Arnold Palmer. With all due respect, is Scott Simpson in the field?

This is what penal architecture and course set-up often produces. To my way of thinking, architecture and set-up should not determine champions. Players should be permitted to golf their balls and, in turn, determine outcomes. Driving to 28.6-yard wide fairways that are running away from you into 6-inch rough and playing to greens that are hard as rocks one day then significantly softer the next (as a result of heavy watering the night before) doesn't help.

At the Derrick Club.

Visualization of proposed improvement at (what could be)
the Derrick Club's par-5 6th hole. Click on images to enlarge.

Obviously I haven't been posting here as regularly as I would typically like lately; which is good and bad. Bad because I enjoy writing/creating these posts, and would like to keep this blog current; good because I simply haven't had much time over the past few weeks and more. Finishing up our bunker renovation project at The Oakville Golf Club; visiting with a few potential new clients; planning for future work with a number of existing clients (including York Downs and Victoria); etc. has kept me as busy as I've (probably) ever been this year, so far. I'm currently in Edmonton, where I'll spend the next few days presenting our golf course improvement plan to members of the Derrick Club, and guiding tours of the course to further explain things to those most interested golfers in more detail.

Visualization of (what could be) the par-3 8th - a brand new
hole that's part of our plans to improve the layout
and sequence of play at the Derrick Club.

Our plan for the Derrick Club is very ambitious. Unlike a few other clubs where I'm working currently, it's more than a matter of draining and remodelling bunkers at the Derrick. The course suffers from some fundamental problems that can only be sincerely remedied through reconstruction. The Derrick is one of the top private clubs in the Edmonton area, offering members excellent year-round amenities. Frankly, its golf course - originally constructed during the late 1950s - doesn't match up with the dining, racquet sport, swimming, fitness and other facilities at the club. This, for me, is a very exciting opportunity to be part of placing the 'icing on the cake' at a fine club, by providing the Derrick with a top-notch golf experience. The next few days should be fun... then, hopefully, the next few years too, as we implement this ambitious, exciting golf course improvement plan.

Mixing it up.

As a follow-up to yesterday's post, which touched on the importance of creating distinctive golf courses, below is a collection of photos illustrating a variety of architectural styles I've been involved with implementing over recent years, at select projects (click on all photos to enlarge) ~

Blackhawk Golf Club ~ Edmonton

Blackhawk was the first project I worked on with my mentor, Rod Whitman. I was fortunate to work on the design/shaping of a majority of the course's 'naturalistic' bunkers under the fine tutelage of Dave Axland and James Duncan (Coore and Crenshaw), and continue to consult at Blackhawk. Pictured above is a bunker short-right of the home green that golf course superintendent, Duane Sharpe, and I 'freshened up' this spring, as part of the comprenshsive bunker 'refresh' project that's currently underway at Blackhawk.

Victoria Golf Club ~ British Columbia

Victoria is a fascinating project. The course wasn't so much designed by an individual (though, Vernon Macan is largely responsible for its current configuration) as much as it's evolved over the past 119 years since golf was first played over VGC's spectacular seaside tract, at Oak Bay, in 1893. As a result, VGC features an ecclectic collection of bunkers, built in different eras throughout the course's existence, which presents a very unique aesthetic that we've faithfully preserved as part of our restorative-based work there. Pictured above is the par 3 2nd hole, shortly after my colleague, George Waters, and I remodelled its bunkers in winter 2009.

Sagebrush Golf and Sporting Club ~ British Columbia

Working with Rod Whitman, Richard Zokol and Armen Suny on the design/construction of Sagebrush was a wonderful, educational, rewarding, and unforgettable experience ~ appreciated more so now, in retrospect, than on those long days while building the course when 35C heat and 50km winds consistently tried to beat us down. I'm not sure I'll ever be involved with another project on a scale comparable to Sagebrush, either. Laid out over a 300+ acre tract that was formerly part of the Quilchena Cattle Ranch, the course features a couple greens that measure some 25,000 square feet, incomparably wide fairway areas, and hundreds of massive, 'blow out' style bunkers that beautifully fit the rugged, desert landscape there, in interior B.C. Pictured above is the approach to the par 4 17th, from approx. the centre of the fairway, where a few of those aforementioned 'blow outs' beautifully decorate a hillside along the left margin of the hole. The par 4 18th hole can also be seen in the distance.  

Overlake Golf and Country Club ~ Seattle

Overlake was also originally designed by Vernon Macan (during the early 1950s). Located on the eastern shore of Lake Washington, the course features a fine routing and an excellent collection of greens, but its suffered typical affects of aging. Unfortunately, there's a lack of historic materials to clearly illustrate Mr. Macan's original design intent; but still, the goal is to restore a 'Macan sensibility' throughout the course. So, we've made a study of Mr. Macan's work elsewhere and have tried to implement looks and strategies throughout the course consistent with his design style and philosophy, at Overlake. With great assistance from my colleague, George Waters, the bunker pictured above was installed short-right of the green at the par 3 12th hole in fall 2010. It's style was inspired by historic photos of a bunker at nearby Inglewood Golf and Country Club, which was also originally designed by Mr. Macan.

The Oakville Golf Club ~ Greater Toronto Area

Tucked away, along the eastern bank of 16 Mile Creek, some 40 kms west of downtown Toronto, The Oakville Golf Club is another distinctive and interesting property. This 9-hole private club course was originally designed by pioneer golf architect, George Cumming ~ who was also head professional at The Toronto Golf Club for half a century, and at one time partnered with Stanley Thompson. The course had been remodelled in piecemeal fashion on several occasions since it opened for play in 1921. As a result, Oakville featured contrasting styles prior to implementation of a comprehensive bunker renovation project earlier this year. The goal of our bunker work at Oakville was to restore a style consistent with the course's unique design heritage. Along with restoring design continuity, our aim was to design/build bunkers to match that '1921' the club proudly displays on its logo. Pictured above is a greenside bunker at the par 4 1st hole, exhibiting this 'old time' style ~ relatively simple and classy in shape, with grass down and a flat sand bottom.

Building architecture > golf architecture.

Our recent work at The Oakville Golf Club, influenced and
inspired by site characteritics and conditions, history,
client needs and desires, etc...

As I've written (too) many times before, I often think of legendary golf architect A.W. Tillinghast - specifically as his work relates to genuinely creating distinctive golf courses.

The contrasting styles of Tillinghast's golf architecture at Somerset Hills (New Jersey), Winged Foot (New York) and the San Francisco Golf Club, for example, provide a wonderful illustration of this very important element in golf course design.

If we didn't know better, we'd likely think each of these remarkable courses were designed by different architects - not all by the great Tillinghast.

Over the past weekend, I came across a short column on Moshe Safdie in the June 2012 issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Safdie is one of the world's leading building architects, who first became famous some five decades ago with his design of Habitat '67, in Montreal. Safdie has since designed many more revered buildings throughout the world, including the National Gallery in Ottawa and the U.S. Institute of Peace, on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

John Heilpern writes about Safdie's resistence to the phenomenon of "starchitects", who have become "almost as famous in the U.S. as celebrity chefs". The theorist-teacher within (Safdie), writes Heilpern, opposes the unquiet architecture of Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind and what he terms, ominously, "the Bilboa effect".

"I don't think I have a signature style that announces, 'This is a Safdie'," says the 74-year old architect. "But I think star architects have seized an opportunity to go anywhere in the world to produce meaningless buildings. You know?"

According to Heilpern, Safdie is constantly asking what the purpose of a building actually is - as his early mentor, Louis I. Kahn, once asked, "What does a building want to be?"

This, to my way of thinking, is a question golf course architects should constantly be asking themselves as well - "What does a golf course want to be?" The answer to this all-important question should be unique in each case - relative to site characteristics and conditions, (in some cases) history, client needs and desires, and other important factors which should (almost always) assist with consistently creating distinctive golf courses.

"I try firstly to make buildings humane," adds Safdie. "Countries and places have a history, a story, and a culture. I want my buildings to take root and look as if they've always been there... it isn't about pastiche or adapting what's already there. It's about trying to blend the future and the past."

I could (and may) paraphase Safdie relative to my own work in golf architecture, simply substituting the words 'golf courses' for 'buildings'.

Safdie also makes an interesting point to Heilpern about inevitable contraints in architecture, citing past debates with influential American building architect Philip Johnson (1906-2005). "There are no rules," Johnson declared. "Only a sense of wonderful freedom."

... bares no resemblence to Sagebrush, where I was on-site
architect - working with Rod Whitman, Richard Zokol and
Armen Suny - through the course's development.

Safdie disagrees, calling Johnson's credo a socially irresponsible license to design anything that comes to mind. "It's treating architecture primarily as an expressive art, like sculpture and painting," he explains. "But architecture has constraints. They're real. It has to contend with them. Otherwise, a building can't fulfill its purpose and the course of its invention - the life that goes on within it."

The parallels between world-class building architecture and the very best golf architecture continues to fascinate.

What's most important to me is to, many years from now, be able to look back on my career in golf architecture and point to a remarkably diverse portfolio - unique golf course designs which derive from sincerely answering the question, "What does this golf courses want to be?"; distinctive golf course designs that intelligently deal with inevitable contraints in creative ways that allow each course to take root and look as if its always been there; and, individual golf courses that completely fulfill their unique purposes.

The works and wisdom of Moshe Safdie and A.W. Tillinghast speak volumes.

A bit more from Uplands.

Some (more) of what's left of Stanley Thompson's 1922 design in Thornhill, Ontario (click on all images to enlarge):



The par 3 4th hole.

Miss the green short at the 4th and you'll face this recovery shot.

Looking at Thornhill G&CC, through the fence behind the 4th green.

Tee shot at the par 4 5th - Uplands' best hole, I think.

Lumpy fairway leading up to the 5th green (not sure what's
being built there, right of the green?).

Looking back at the 5th hole.

Canada's toughest hole (in relation to par)?

I'd long heard about the famous 8th hole at Uplands before getting my first look at it, in person, last week.

These days, Uplands is a nine-hole public course in Thornhill, Ontario - just north of dowtown Toronto. Back in 1922, when the course originally opened as a private 18-hole club, it was surely one of Toronto's best. The original design is credited to Stanley Thompson, who's brother Bill was elected Uplands' first president.

A report on developments at Uplands in the July 1922 issue of The Canadian Golfer magazine reads: There is sufficient room for two 18-hole courses... work will be commenced on one 18-hole course at once. The plans provide for two reversible 18-hole links starting and finishing at the clubhouse, a new feature in golf course construction in Canada, and one which should prevent over-crowding. Only one 18-hole course was ever built at Uplands. And, I'm not sure what's meant by 'reversible courses', as in a literal sense I can't see how reversible courses could properly function on such heaving ground. Uplands is a wildly undulating property - up and down, quirky and bumpy, the course isn't long, there aren't many bunkers, but it continues to look like 'plain fun'.

Back in 1988, Uplands was reduced to nine-holes. At the same time, it also became a public-access course. Seemingly crammed into an urban setting these days - with massive homes covering what is now 'the lost nine' and the private Thornhill club (another Thompson design) immediately adjacent - it's hard to believe there was once 'sufficient room for two 18-hole courses' at Uplands.

The aforementioned 8th hole (originally the 17th) is a sight to behold. Some 235 yards long, it's labelled a par 3 on the scorecard; which, in my view, definitely makes it one of Canada's toughest holes in relation to par.

As pictured below, Uplands' 8th plays from an elevated tee, through an extremely narrow corridor created by overgrown trees, to a super-tiny fronted by a steep, rough bank that eliminates any opportunity to run a ball onto the putting surface. Oh yeah, there's also a creek meandering along the left side, assisting to make a 'lay up' off the tee look as difficult as hitting the green. I watched three groups play this hole last week during my brief visit, and it seemed (almost) unplayable for the average green fee-paying golfer. There was a back-up on the tee, in fact, as people searched for balls then made illegal drops and, generally, carded high scores.

There's no doubt the tee shot was less constricting and not as frightening in the course's early days, but I still thought - imagine playing this hole in the mid-1920s, with an old ball and hickory shafted clubs!

Witness the 8th at Uplands:  

A view from the front of the back tee - frightening.
(Click on all images to enlarge)

The steep grass bank fronting the green, as viewed from
short-right of the putting surface.

The super-tiny green, which may measure less
than 2,000 square feet - a daunting target from any
distance, never mind 235 yards.

Angles.

Donald Ross' plan for Essex' 12th hole (c. 1928)
illustrates the left-to-right angle of the green.
Click image to enlarge

In many respects, the finest golf architecture is about angles; and, there is perhaps no other course in the world that emphasizes angles as much as TPC Sawgrass, where THE PLAYERS Championship is being contested this weekend.

At Sawgrass, Pete Dye literally transformed an inhospitable swamp into one of the most crook-ridden layouts ever made. Not only is it extremely important to play to certain positions off many tees at Sawgrass to gain a favourable angle of approach to specific hole locations, many (if not most) fairways bend at some 280-290 yards off the tees requiring draws and fades simply to hold the short grass areas, without running through the fairway.

Imagine, too, without any natural topography to inspire the design, Mr. Dye created all of those holes at Sawgrass from a 'blank canvas' too. Love it or hate it, Sawgrass is a stroke of architectural genius. While watching THE PLAYERS Championship this weekend, notice how often (the best of the) television commentators talk about the necessity of shaping the ball off the tees and coming into so many greens from preferred angles relative to the day's hole locations - great stuff.

While playing Essex (in Windsor, Ontario) last weekend, I was again reminded of the cool effect the angle of Donald Ross' 12th green can have on the tee shot at this neat, nearly 100-year old par 3 hole. Built over dead flat ground, the hole measures about 190 yards from the back tees on the scorecard. But its elevated green is set at a distinct left-to-right angle (and fronted by bunkers) which makes left hole locations play much shorter than shots to a back-right flag. With the hole cut left-centre last Sunday, two low-handicap players in our group pulled their tee shots ever so slightly and, because of the aforementioned angle of the green, ended up in the back-left bunker. Without those slight pulls, those tee shots (probably) would have been 'perfect'.

Angles at holes like Essex' 12th, and so many at TPC Sawgrass make thoughtful consideration of lines of play, proper ball-striking and immaculate distance control absolutely essential to a golfer's arsenal.

Fantastic day at Essex (Windsor ON), yesterday.

"It was moved by W.R. Campbell, seconded by Geo. Willoughby that the secretary be instructed to write Donald Ross (Golf Architect) and ascertain from him when the earliest date on which he could come here and consult re: laying out of the new course." - From the minutes of an Essex G&CC Directors meeting, February 23, 1928.

The short par 3 7th hole, where a drainage swale crossing between the tee and green provides some interesting topographic relief on an otherwise flat property. (Click to enlarge.)

"The original design at Essex is a perfect blend of complex putting surfaces matched with the varying lengths of tee and approach shots. It is a golf course that, throughout the years, has challenged every type of golfer from the greats of the game to your average 'Sunday afternoon' member." - Bruce Hepner, Golf Architect.

Looking over a beautiful cross-bunker short of the green at the par 4 16th hole. GolfClubAtlas.com's Ran Morrissett describes Essex' 16th as "one of Ross' best greens anywhere". (Click to enlarge.)

"Essex, for those of us old enough to play in that delightful 1976 Canadian Open, brings back warm and happy memories. The course was a fabulous and well cared for Donald Ross design.... the greens were superb and fascinating as well as 18 'interesting problems'." - Ben Crenshaw.

Golfweek magazine recently ranked Essex #10 on its list of the Best Canadian 'Classic' courses, built pre-1960.

Inspiration @ OGC.

New bunker short-right of the 3rd green, at Oakville.
(Click image to enlarge.)

The Oakville Golf Club - where we're in the midst of a comprehensive bunker renovation project - was originally designed by George Cumming. Mr. Cumming was head professional at The Toronto Golf Club for half a century. He also laid-out a number of the best early courses in Ontario beginning shortly after the First World War.

Mr. Cumming's course at OGC opened for play in 1921. Studying historic aerials from the 1930s - which roughly illustrate what was built under Mr. Cumming's direction - provided some inspiration for our plan but certainly didn't serve as a 'road map' to restoring the original design. So much has changed over the years at Oakville - mostly as a result of piecemeal redesign work by no less than three (other) golf architects over the past few decades and more.

In my opinion, there wasn't enough really 'good stuff'in aforementioned aerials to persue true restoration at Oakville. Still, I think the course's design pedigree is very important. You can't create history, which is very important in golf. So, thinking about what to do, 'my gut' told me that overall the course should aesthetically match that '1921' proudly displayed as part of the club's logo. Again, those old aerials didn't show much, but one thing stood out - the variety amongst bunkers throughout the course in the early days. Some were large and elaborately shaped, others were very simple and small, with the rest fit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum - great variety, which made me think of the distinctive work of another early 1920s golf architect: Devereaux Emmett.

While relatively unheralded these days, Mr. Emmett produced some fascinating golf architecture throughout his career at places like Garden City Golf Club (Garden City, New York), St. George's Golf and Country Club (Stony Brook, New York), and Huntington Country Club on Long Island's North Shore. I began studying photos of St. George's and Huntington, in particular, for further inspiration relative to the planned bunker(s) 'upgrade' at Oakville.

As per historic aerials, an overview of Mr. Emmett's bunker designs at Huntington reminded me a bit of the old bunkers at Oakville (NLE) - albeit on a much grander scale. Some were large and elaborately shaped, others were very simple and small, with the rest fit into the middle of this spectrum. Additionally, contemporary ground view images of St. George's (where architect Gil Hanse and course superintendent Adam Jessie have done a remarkable job at restoring Mr. Emmett's original design over recent years) showed some really cool (and clearly manufactured) mounds that factor prominently into the design.

It seemed to me that a loose interpretation of this pre-World War II era 'Emmett style' - featuring extreme variety amongst bunkers throughout the course and a (manufactured) 'bumpiness' - is exactly what Oakville needed to (re-)create a course that matches its own design pedigree and, more important, stands out as distinct amongst others in the Greater Toronto Area. So that's what we're doing; and, the results thus far are very interesting.

MGCD (now) on Twitter.

@jeff_mingay

(Absolutely) ridiculous.

Muirfield, East Lothian, Scotland (click to enlarge).
Photo courtesy of George Waters.

Last week's report that the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, under the direction of chief executive Peter Dawson, established a fund to deliberately invest $16 million in 'toughening and tighening' courses on the Open rota (kinda) blew my mind. That's approximately $800,000 per course on the rota, according to Dawson.  

What's so shocking about this? First, the R&A (in conjunction with its counterpart on this side of the Atlantic - the United States Golf Association) is an organization with responsibility to 'govern' the game. Technically, part of that 'governance' responsibility involves regulating playing equipment. But instead of acting with significance on the never-ending distance issue, here we have the R&A (and USGA) 'toughening and tighening' many of the world's best courses for a single week of competition, in direct response to their own inabilities to keep the performance of clubs and (especially) balls under control. 

Frankly, the R&A and USGA have done a horrendous, almost non-existent job over the past two decades at regulating playing equipment - reportedly in fear of potential lawsuits from equipment manufacturers, who also have done the game no favours with their (seeming) unwillingness to work with the game's governing bodies on a solution to this problem.

The necessity of renovating courses to keep up with an unregulated golf ball that continues to travel out of control is an absolutely ridiculous path for golf to be on. Why? The threat posed by allowing the ball to travel further still, along with the example set by the R&A's 'toughening and tightening' campaign is quite easy to comprehend: Longer (and longer) courses require more land (remember, the longer the ball is permitted to fly the further it'll also travel sideways); bigger courses are more expensive to build and maintain (these are costs that inevitably translate into higher green fees and club dues); and, bigger courses take longer to play too (there's already a very discouraging slow play problem in golf).

None of this is good for the game, and amazingly relates directly to the R&A's and USGA's non-response to ever-improving playing equipment technology.

Forget the potential lawsuits that may be filed by equipment manufacturers if stricter regulations on playing equipment are imposed - it's been suggested that, perhaps, a class action lawsuit should be filed against the game's governing bodies by all of those clubs and course owners literally forced to add back tees, move greens and bunkers down range, etc., as a means to recoup their 'investments' in response to the R&A's and USGA's apparent complacency.

Now, there's an interesting concept to consider.

Designing in the field.

An 'epiphany' at Oakville's 9th hole earlier this week -
we need another bunker!

"The designer should not be tied down too closely to his original plan." - Alister Mackenzie (1920).

Flexibility to deviate from drawn plans as a golf course takes shape is so important. I was most recently reminded of this a few days ago during a site visit at The Oakville Golf Club, where we're in the midst of a comprehensive bunker project.

Oakville's 9th is one of four holes there featuring alternate tees. A tee immediately adjacent to the 8th green, at right, presents a markedly different (and superior) view down the fairway than you get from the alternate tee way left of the previous green. These alternate tee views present a bit of a design challenge relative to locating fairway bunkers that visually 'make sense' from both tees.

The right tee is the original from George Cumming's 1921 design. The left tee, on the opposite side of the club's entrance drive - cutting between holes 1 and 2/8 and 9 - was installed some time later. Again, I prefer the original tee. From there golfers are presented an uninterupted view of the entire hole. Three bunkers cut into an upslope along the left side of the fairway are clearly visible; and, another bunker features at right, on the direct line from tee to green. You can't see the putting surface from this (right) tee, but the flagstick is visible over a crest in the fairway - a good-looking hole with an old-fashion sensibility fitting of the course's heritage. Perfect.

From the left tee though, you can't see the flagstick (because of overhanging tree limbs in the left rough and a rise in the ground along that side of the hole) and only a bit of sand is seen. Looking at this situation earlier this week, it occurred to me that another bunker short of the existing one down the right side would not only improve the picture presented to golfers from the left tee but also emphasize the (cool) right-to-left angle of the fairway as viewed from this spot. Frankly, this isn't something that I could have 'seen' while drafting plans for this project a few years ago. It was actually a patch of bare dirt in this area that suggested an additional bunker. Such opportunities - often triggered by something like a patch or pile of dirt - always present themselves as a golf course plan evolves from concept to reality. Again, this is why a golf architect should 'not be tied down too closely to his original plan'; that is, if the intent is to create the very best golf course possible.

From initial conceptual planning through to 'opening day', there are always opportunities to improve upon initial design ideas if a golf course architect spends enough time on-site during construction and is provided the necessary flexibility to deviate from concept plans. Of course, there are always budget- and time-related concerns relative to making adjustments in the field - which is why 'contingency' is the most important line item in any budget and/or construction schedule!

Sustainability ~

Ron Prichard's plan for restoration
of Donald Ross' 1927 design at Northland
Country Club. (Click image to enlarge.)

Sustainability in golf architecture and course maintenance is a 'hot topic' these days - as it should be.

My post here yesterday, on Pete Dye's old 'waste bunkers' at Harbour Town and TPC Sawgrass, instigated an interesting conversation with Chris Tritabaugh on this very subject. Chris is golf course superintendent at Northland Country Club in Duluth, Minnesota. He also publishes one of the most interesting and informative blogs on his course maintenance operation there. Visit Chris' blog by clicking here.

Sustainability means different things to different people. Here's the short exchange Chris and I had earlier today, covering a few of the basics:

Chris Tritabaugh: As a superintendent who embraces the idea of rough around the edges I think the way these two courses (Harbour Town and TPC Sawgrass) have changed is one of the many reasons golf is where it is today. For many years maintenance perfection as the norm was just fine, but this is no longer the case and now courses who maintained to perfection are unwilling to go back to rough around the edges for fear they will lose their patrons. It is a very unfortunate situation we are in as an industry.

Jeff Mingay: Very well said, Chris. I should have mentioned, too, that (I'm pretty sure) one of the reasons Pete Dye originally left the outside edges at Sawgrass scruffy was to reduce required maintenance, along with associated cost and output - that was over 30 years ago! Golf course maintenance does indeed need to be reduced. Golf has been enjoyed for hundreds and hundreds of years with golf course conditioning nowhere near where too many courses are today. If we cut back on fertilzing and watering rough areas and rake bunkers less frequently (etc), golfers are still going to show up. It's all about more and more education, right. Golfers simply need to better understand why this needs to happen. And that it's not a big deal.

CT: So here is what I don't understand about the management of roughs. What golfer enjoys thick rough? I can answer that; none of them do. It makes for an awful experience. We have no irrigation in our roughs and we make no attempt to water them. We fertilized the roughs my second year here but have not done so since and have no plans to do so in the future. The rough is a bit rough. There are fine fescues, colonial bents, creeping bents, moss, wild strawberries and many more cool plants in our rough. Usually you get a good lie, sometimes you don't and we spend the minimum to maintain it so that our concentration can be on the fine playing surfaces. One comment we often here from golfers is "we love the rough because it isn't hard to find a ball or play from." Trust me the demand for highly manicured rough is not coming from the golfers.

JM: Your rough management (or non-management?) sounds ideal, Chris. Great stuff. In my experience, I find more golfers complain about the condition of the rough areas when the fairway mow patterns are out of whack. I think establishing the correct fairway patterns (which is different in every situation) and adequate/appropriate width - which many courses lack - provides a lot of latitude to let the roughs go, the way you do at Northland. In some cases, too, certain golfers like thick rough (and an over-abundance of bunkers) where the course's greens feature little, to no architectural character. I'm dealing with a club where this is the case right now. We're doing a major bunker renovation project, which involves removal of nearly half of the bunkers on the course - partly to reduce maintenance cost and output. I don't think this is having any affect on the challenges out there. However, I've been accused of 'making the course too easy'. My response is that we should be redoing the greens instead of the bunkers. If they allowed us to make the green's a little more interesting we could then remove all of the bunkers, mow the entire course at the same length and, at the same time, make it more challenging! That usually draws the 'deer in headlights' stare.

CT: In November I had the pleasure of going to Bandon for the second time. We played 6 rounds in 4 days with 3 rounds being Old Mac. To me the fairway lines combined with the rough maintenance there is perfect. My brother and I each lost one ball out there; (both hooked it into the same patch of gorse on 11 in different rounds) its the ultimate hit it and go find it experience. Our fairways could be wider and we are working to achieve that in places. The difficultly here lies in the greens. Being in the rough means you are in a poor position to attack the greens at the correct angle. Plus, while not thick the rough does remove just enough spin to make you have to think about where to land your ball. To me this is the ultimate way to make a player think their way around the course.

JM: Great example to emphasize my point, Chris. The greens at Old Macdonald are so interesting that you really don't need rough and bunkers to make golf adequately/appropriately challenging (and fun). Again, it's at courses where the greens feature uninteresting putting surfaces and surrounds that some golfers are consumed with the requirements of (too many) bunkers, narrow fairways and thick rough. This perception is totally misguided. Along with a course like Old Macdonald, St. Andrews-Old and Augusta National present the best example of the ideal in golf course architecture. When holes are laid-out to make the most of the best natural features of a property then eighteen varied and interesting greens are created, rough and bunkers don't even need to be part of the equation - which would help with reducing maintenance requirements, I think. The issue with this is, how would golfers perceive a course designed along these lines - where it's all about slope and contour, a minimal number of bunkers, real 'rough' (as you describe at Northland) and, of course, minimizing water, fertilzer and chemical applications as a means to keep the ground firm even if the course is every colour but green?

'Waste bunkers' no more.

This massive 'waste bunker', running the length of the 16th fairway
at Harbour Town, wasn't always this well-manicured.

The term 'waste bunker' came about in the late 1960s during construction of Harbour Town Golf Links, where the PGA Tour's RBC Heritage tournament is being contested this week. "I'm not certain whether I or a member of the construction crew coined the phrase," course architect Pete Dye writes in his book Bury Me in a Pot Bunker.

"During construction, I was checking the course one day and spotted the local sewer patrol fighting a losing battle with a broken pipe near Harbour Town's border," Dye continues. "With raw sewage about to pour over the area, I suggested the workers pump it into a long, narrow depression that was to be used for a bunker. As the waste water filled the bunker, somehow the term waste bunker was born, and it has been used to designate such areas ever since."

This is an interesting piece of golf history. But, like other Pete Dye stories, I wonder if it's altogether true. Dye originally designed his 'waste bunkers' - at Harbour Town first then later TPC Sawgrass, and elsewhere - to be rough, rugged, unkempt, sandy areas that weren't raked, sometimes filled with gnarly clumps of grasses, and played through the green. When Harbour Town and Sawgrass originally opened for play (in 1969 and '83-ish, respectively), you could ground your club in Dye's 'waste bunkers'. So, the raw sewage story aside, 'waste bunker' still seems very appropriate to describe these sandy, unkempt areas that were literally designed be wastelands of sorts.

Regardless, Dye's original vision for those so-called 'waste bunkers' has disappeared at Harbour Town and Sawgrass - where The Players will tee off in a few weeks. Basically, the PGA Tour decided it would be more appropriate for tournament play to clean-up those 'waste bunkers', rake 'em and simply play 'em as bunkers according to the Rules of Golf.

You'd be amazed to see photos of Harbour Town and Sawgrass in their early days. Both courses were much more rough-hewn before the Tour mandated comparatively meticulous maintenance. I was fortunate to get a look at some very early photos of Sawgrass during a visit to  Bobby Weed's office a few years ago. Based in Ponte Vedra, Florida (where Sawgrass is located), Weed's now a successful golf course architect in his own right. Back in the early 1980s he was working for Dye. Weed worked on the construction of Sawgrass and, for a stint, was the course's superintendent. In these old photos, Sawgrass is almost unrecognizable. The course's aesthetic transformation is basically the equivilant of turning Pine Valley into Augusta National; ironically, Dye originally designed Sawgrass to the the anti-thesis of Augusta.

Harbour Town's look has changed over the years as well, but thankfully these aesthetic transformations have not altered the fundamental brilliance of two of the game's most revolutionary golf course designs.

It's all about the greens.

Detail of the 14th green at Augusta National.

Putting greens to a golf course are what the face is to a portrait. The clothes the subjects wears, the background, whether scenery or whether draperies - are simply accessories; the face tells the story and determines the character and quality of the portrait - whether it is good or bad. So it is in golf; you can always build a putting green. Teeing grounds, hazards, the fairway, rough, etc., are accessories.

- Charles Blair Macdonald.

We admire many remarkable golf holes at Augusta National these days, but the old Fruitland Nursery wasn't exactly an ideal site for golf when Alister Mackenzie and Bobby Jones surveyed the property back in the early 1930s. Mackenzie's routing makes remarkably intelligent use of a property that's incredibly steep in spots, for one; and, his discovery of those sites that are now the 12th and 13th holes is considered genius.

Whereas the layout of holes is the foundation of Augusta National's brilliance, it's the greens that really make the course. Not only do greens chock full of this kind of character present challenge and provide playing interest, they often make for more dramatic shots than otherwise. Take Louis Oosthuizen's albatross, yesterday, for example. The slope and contour of the 2nd green took Oosthuizen's ball from the centre of the green all the way over the far right side of the putting surface, and into the hole: brilliant drama that you don't see at a 'typical' course where green after green is simply pitched back to front.

What I like best about the greens at Augusta National though is, they reward well-played strokes but, at the same time, severely penalize golfers who miss in the wrong spots relative to the day's hole locations without necessity of using other hazards (an overabundance of bunkers and water for example) to present challenge and playing interest. Golfers must study and learn the intricacies of the greens at Augusta National to have success there. I guarantee it wasn't a fluke that Oosthuizen pitched his ball where it landed at the 2nd hole yesterday. With the right spin on it, Oosthuizen definitely knew how his ball was going to react to the ground there, having made a study of that particular green throughout last week.

When a course requires study - rather than just an effective swing, shot after shot - golf rises to another, far more fascinating and enjoyable level of recreation and competition.

Augusta National's greens didn't happen by accident, either. A lot of intelligence, thought, planning and artistry was required to create them. Almost a century on since Augusta National was originally designed, we're lucky those greens have provided important lessons to golf course architects and unparalleled excitement each year during the Masters Tournament.

A few 'game changers'.

The 2nd hole at Huntercombe (from www.golfclubatlas.com).

Earlier this week, a golf writer asked: What do you think has been the biggest 'game changer' in golf course design through the years? 

There are a number of 'watershed' moments in the history of golf course design that I think qualify as 'game changers'.

First is the work of two-time Open champion Willie Park Jr. at Sunningdale and Huntercombe, on the outskirts of London (UK), at the turn of the 20th century; 1901, to be precise. Park's work at these two courses proved, for the first time, that courses comparable to the classic links could be constructed on inland sites. His work there, more or less, instigated a period of remarkable work lead by Englishman Harry Colt.

A few years later, beginning in 1910, Charles Blair Macdonald began creating the National Golf Links of America, out on the eastern tip of Long Island, New York. NGLA was the first truly great course on this side of the Atlantic to compare favourably with the best courses throughout the British Isles. Macdonald had traveled to the UK to study the best courses there, then implemented many of those time-tested design concepts (through his own interpretations) at NGLA. It was NGLA that set a new standard for golf course architecture in the United States, instigating the so-called Golden Age of golf course design, between the wars, in North America.

I also think Augusta National was a 'game changer'. The concept behind its original design, devised by Bobby Jones and Alister Mackenzie, was revolutionary. Loosely modeled after the Old Course at St. Andrews (Jones' and Mackenzie's favourite course), ANGC was designed to achieve what remains the 'ideal in golf architecture' - that is to present a course that challenges the world's best golfers but, at the same time, provides an enjoyable round for all caliber of players. When Augusta National opened for play, during the early 1930s, there was essentially no rough and only 22 bunkers (today there are 44). ANGC was geniusly designed around inherent slope and manufactured contour (greens) without reliance on artifical hazards. Legendary Canadian golf architect Vernon Macan once said (I'm paraphrasing, here): If you want to learn about golf course architecture, all you have to do is read the chapter in Bobby Jones' autobiography on the making of Augusta National.

Essentially, the same principles and concepts established and employed by the likes of Willie Park Jr., C.B. Macdonald, Bobby Jones and Alister Mackenzie remain the foundation of what we understand to be sound golf architecture.

News on our work at The Oakville Golf Club.

Golf Course Architecture magazine's posted a news story on our at The Oakville Golf Club. Click here to read.

New MGCD site almost ready to 'launch'.

New fairway bunker at Oakville's 1st hole,
under construction last week (click to enlarge).

Obviously, I haven't been posting here as regularly as usual during the month of March...

My colleague, Keith Cutten, and I have been working on a new web site design. When the new MGCD site 'launches' (very shortly), this blog will move there. The web site redesign will also feature more photos of our work, additional writings on golf course architecture, etc.

In the meantime, I have a busy couple of weeks ahead. I'll be back at The Oakville Golf Club later this week, where our bunker renovation project is progressing nicely, with help from Evans Golf; then it's on to Seattle, for a consulting visit at Overlake Golf and Country Club.