[Dan Kelly]

In some current thread, someone (sorry; can't remember who) cites Tom Doak to this effect:

Most dual-fairway holes fail because the smart play is (or at least should be) too obvious to most golfers. The choice isn't confusing enough. (I presume the same could be said of most holes with mid-fairway hazards.)

Which led me to this -- and perhaps this is exactly what you guys mean, and nothing more, when you talk about "strategic" architecture (an idea I've always had trouble getting my arms around):

Isn't the ideal dual-fairway hole one where "THE [emphasis added] choice" NEVER becomes obvious -- where, every time a golfer came to the hole, he would stand on the tee and  weigh his options, given all of the current conditions (the wind, the firmness of the turf, the pin position, the state of his game), and where, one day, he might go one way, and the next day, he'd go the other -- even if the conditions on the two days were identical!?

Take it further: Isn't that the description of the ideal hole of every sort -- short, long and in-between?

THESIS:

The essence of great architecture is a series of confounding choices (how aggressive to be, how "safe" to be), from tee through green on every hole.

Is confusion the essence of great golf-course architecture?

[THuckaby2]

Dan, I absolutely agree with you.  Intermingled in with all the personal crap on those other threads, that's exactly what I've said, several times.  The less I can figure out a hole definitively, the greater it is in my book.

The problem with all of this is that as SPDB said elsewhere (parphrasing), choices are one thing, execution is another.  That is very true.  Knowing the proper choice doesn't mean one's going to make it happen.

Thus the value of this diminishes, I guess.

Still, being made to think is always better than mindlessly firing away, the way I look at the game anyway.

TH

[Joe Hancock]

Dan and Tom,

As an example, our course has a tree on hole #10. Par 5, 500 yards-ish....tree  is only 130 yards off the tee, but it's smack dab in the "ideal" line to the fairway. It's tall. Whether it's confusion or indifference, the player who doesn't decide what they will do with the tree, either draw, go over or fade, seems to inevitably get gobbled up. Discussion has arisen as to whether said tree should stay or go, but it's Dans premise exactly as to why it still stands: confusion affects the swing of the player.

Club selection is a common area where confusion almost always makes for a poorly executed shot.

Is "Confounding Choices" the essence of great architecture? I'm not sure that I would want 18 holes straight of being confounded, but it most certainly has it's place.

Joe

[Dan Kelly]

The problem with all of this is that as SPDB said elsewhere (parphrasing), choices are one thing, execution is another.  That is very true.  Knowing the proper choice doesn't mean one's going to make it happen.

I think you're not quite getting my point, Tom IV.

I'm hypothesizing that the essence of great architecture is the presentation of a series of confounding choices -- on every shot of every hole -- such that there IS no "THE proper choice."

One's choice one day might be the exact-opposite of one's choice the next day -- depending on the conditions, INCLUDING the condition of one's game and the relative likelihood that the condition of one's game would allow one to execute the choice one has made.

[Rick Shefchik]

I see the issue as one of being "conflicted" rather than being "confused," but I agree with the premise. When I'm not sure which of my choices is the better (or best) one, it takes that much more concentration to execute my choice. I don't think I feel conflicted often enough on most courses.

[THuckaby2]

No, I get you Dan - I just threw that in to say that golf isn't so exact, that's all.  The physical aspect of it remains as important as the mental, and more so for some people...

I am right with you in everything you say, in any case.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

I see the issue as one of being "conflicted" rather than being "confused," but I agree with the premise. When I'm not sure which of my choices is the better (or best) one, it takes that much more concentration to execute my choice. I don't think I feel conflicted often enough on most courses.

You know, Rick, how far out of my way I'll go to avoid "conflict." (Smiley of some sort.)

But I take your point -- and defer to JHancock's observation that 4 hours of confounding might be a little much.

So: How about, instead of "confusion" (and "confounding choices"), "indecision." Four hours of indecision would suit me fine.

[Mike Benham]

Is confusion the essence of great golf-course architecture?

I don't think, but maybe I'm confused or indecisive, that "confusion" is the right word.  I believe it is as simple as "choices are the essense of great golf-course architecture".

The architect can only present the choices, it is the golfer's mind that will impart confusion and indecision into the pre-shot thought process that will determine if the execution of the thought is successful or not ...

[CHrisB]

Dan,
Agreed and that's why I love the 14th (Long) hole at the Old Course so much; it is the most strategic hole I've ever seen, and it's the one hole more than any other where I ask myself "What the heck should I try here?" on every shot.

Sometimes you don't know if you've made the right or wrong choice even after you hit the shot!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

Understandably, I disagree, confusion is not at the heart of great architecture.

The decision on the play of each shot is not a mystery which requires one to wade through a myriad of confusing choices.

Most golfers are stuck with a set method of play, a modis operendi when it comes to their golf game.  Very few are capable of shaping every shot to provide the maximum advantage borne through execution.

Hence, much of the decision making is predetermined for them
and much of the decision making is irrelevant because they aren't capable of executing the required shot, in the ideal or personal form.

Simplisticly, the golfer has to get from POINT T to Point C on a varied field of play, mostly visible.  Very few golfers that I know, from plus 5's to 36 handicappers are confused on the tee, especially on par 3's.  And, the choices aren't that varied.

Holes like # 1 at NGLA, GCGC do provide choices, but not confusing choices, and certainly not an abundant number of choices, confusing or apparent.

The game of golf isn't that cerebral that it requires high IQ's to interpret the architecture and play it successfully.

Lastly, and according to your theory,
Does the confusion caused by a blind hole represent the epitome of great architecture ?  

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

I think architects CAN present confusion (confoundment, etc) along with "choices". A green built into a hillside, then contoured to be deceptive as to it's break is an example of intentional confusion. An approach over a swale, made to appear uphill, but in reality is a level approach, might be another. Choices, to me, seem more clear cut, while deception, etc. is a little more trickery on the part of the architect...and both add to the game...in moderation!

Joe

[ian]

Dan,

You need it all for great architecture. Choices, alternate routes, carry angles and the heroic shot. The 7th at Pebble has no options but is great; and while I initially rushed to jump on the bandwagon, it was the hole that made me say No.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

You need it all for great architecture. Choices, alternate routes, carry angles and the heroic shot. The 7th at Pebble has no options but is great; and while I initially rushed to jump on the bandwagon, it was the hole that made me say No.

Ian,

I'm not sure that Pebble 7 is great architecture. It's sure fun (to judge by my one round there), and one of my favorite holes to muse on -- but I'm not sure that makes it "great."

I'll happily accept your view that it is.

What I AM sure of is that Pebble 7 is not without options.

Does one hit a full, high shot -- risking that the wind will grab it and send it awry ... short, long, left or right?

Or does one hit a little knockdown -- staying under the wind,  but requiring a defter touch than a full shot?

Does one aim, prudently, exactly at the dead-center of the green?

Or does one aim more or less directly at the pin -- increasing the risk of finding a hazard with any mis-hit?

I'd guess there's more than plenty of indecision in that tee box, day after day.

Patrick --

You'll note that I changed my word of choice from "confusion" to "indecision." That may not change your opinion one iota. Or it might. Who knows?

You write: "The game of golf isn't that cerebral that it requires high IQ's to interpret the architecture and play it successfully."

I'll accept that you know whereof you speak. (Smiley.) After all, you've played it more successfully than I have.  

But I wonder: Isn't one goal of golf-course architecture to allow the physically less-gifted to use their mental prowess to minimize the penalties exacted by their physical less-giftedness in their contests with the physically more-gifted?

You write: "Very few golfers that I know, from plus 5's to 36 handicappers are [indecisive] on the tee, especially on par 3's."
They're not? They're not thinking about whether to take dead aim at the pin, or whether they wouldn't be better off aiming 10 feet to the center-side, or maybe 20 feet, or about what's going to face them if they miss their intended spot short, long, left or right, and  about which of those misses would be preferable? They're not?

I do think about such things -- and I continue to hypothesize: The greater the course, the more often the course will demand such considerations.

But I could be wrong, of course.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

There seems to be a ridiculous notion that the less physically gifted golfer is more intelligent then the more physically gifted golfer.  I don't know how or where this premise was presented or why it was accepted, but, I've seen it bandied about quite a bit on this site.  I reject that notion, and everything attributed to it.

I think most golfers recognize risk/reward, or bad play/good play, some alternatives are more obvious than others, but, the play of a shot, may have more to do with ego and heroics then indecision created by multiple choice and the downside of a failed attempt.

The basics are rather straight forward, while the subtleties may be more difficult to detect, but experience can be the best teacher.

I would ask again, does the confusion/indecision caused by the blind hole represent the epitome of great architecture ?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Dan Kelly:

You are a man after my heart. I love "confusion" on a golf course and wish we would see it more.

"Confusion" is a critical element in great architecture. The less sure the golfer is about what he should do, the better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly & Tim Weiman,

WIND, not architects create confusion.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I agree that wind plays a key role in creating confusion. But, I'm not prepared to give the architect no credit for how he exploits it..

[Dan Kelly]

Dan Kelly,

There seems to be a ridiculous notion that the less physically gifted golfer is more intelligent then the more physically gifted golfer.  I don't know how or where this premise was presented or why it was accepted, but, I've seen it bandied about quite a bit on this site.  I reject that notion, and everything attributed to it.

Of course, I have never advocated that "ridiculous notion." Nor shall I ever. I wonder who has, here on this site. Care to name names, Patrick?

I'll remind you that I merely asked: "Isn't one goal of golf-course architecture to allow the physically less-gifted to use their mental prowess to minimize the penalties exacted by their physical less-giftedness in their contests with the physically more-gifted?"

Quite obviously, Patrick, there is no inverse relationship between physical giftedness and mental prowess. Witness: Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods.

When the physical prowess and the mental prowess come in the same package, there's nothing a golf-course architect can do to get in its way. Nor should there be anything.

[ForkaB]

Great thread, Dan, and not only because I agree completely with your premise!  My only problem with the premise is that in trying to apply it to many of the most renowned holes on courses which are commonly held to be "great" that I have played, many of those holes and those courses just do not come up to scratch.  Perhaps this is why Pat Mucci seems determined to be contrarian on this issue?

Anybody who plays Dornoch and is not continuously "confounded" during their round as to how to play their shots (particularly to 3 of the 4 short holes) is in dreamland or a significantly better player than anybody else who has ever played there.  The hole there that is often cited as the "worst" on the course (16) is in fact a textbook example of the "thinking man's split fairway" hole that you refer to in your initial post.  Compare and contrast Dornoch and nearby Brora, and you will see the difference between the great and the merely good in golf course design, and it all has a lot to do with choices and the inevitability of being confounded on a great course (or on a great hole, or even just on a great shot) no matter how good or even great you are.

[BCrosby]

Unlike this thread, golf couse architecture is not about confusion.

It is about uncertainty and temptation.

After playing 16 at RD a couple of times, I have a pretty good grasp of the playing choices. I am not confused about my options. There are, afterall, a finite number of them.  

But I may well be uncertain as to the option I should take. That uncertainty comes from any number of sources - from weather, where I am in my match, what I had for lunch, or the noise from last pass of a Tornado in the Fife of Dornoch.

On good holes uncertainty also comes from the temptation to hit shots that carry lots of risk. Shots that may be beyond your grasp. On those holes you are never quite sure that you are making the right choice. Your choices are invariably unsettling and that is what makes a hole interesting.

Like at 16 on RD.

Bob  

[T_MacWood]

Confounding choices are an important ingredient in great golf course architecture. But in my opinion there is a difference between what makes a golf hole great architecture and what makes a golf course an example of great architecture.

I don’t personally believe eighteen confounding golf holes makes for a great golf course. In my mind great golf course architecture is a balance between confounding choices, less than confounding choices and little or no choice (like the 7th at Pebble Beach). Between difficult and not so difficult. Throw in exceptional natural features – like wild ground movement or a twisting stream or broken ground plus interesting man-made hazards & greens and a little quirk or surprise and IMO you have great golf course architecture.

It is the balance, the combination of great holes, good holes, breathers, and goofy holes that makes for interesting golf. The idea that some prominent modern architects have that the golfer is looking for 18 finishing holes or 18 signature hole or even 18 confounding golf holes misses the point of why certain courses are so interesting.

Darwin was a fan of Hunter’s book ‘The Links’ – but in the book Hunter argued that the 10th at St.Andrews (I believe it was 10th or maybe the 9th) was great golf hole. Darwin said he couldn’t possibly believe that, it was a non-descript breather. But Darwin said it would be a crime to touch the hole, it came at a natural point in the round (between some very challenging/confounding holes coming in and then going out) and its place in the greater scheme of the golf course was perfect. His thoughts are similar to Simpson’s who believed that the ideal golf course must possess at least one bad or odd golf hole.

[George Pazin]

Nice post, Rich.

I'm inclined to think Ian & Tom MacWood hit it right with variety.

I think most golfers like the exact opposite - clear cut options & maybe even no choice at all. That & immaculate green grass.

P.S. Dan, I'm hurt you couldn't remember me.

[ForkaB]

Bob C

"Uncertainty and temptation" is just a euphemism (in a golfing sense) for "confusion" which is in itself just a mild noun version of the verb "to confound."

So, you agree with me.  Thanks!

[THuckaby2]

Great thread!

But gentleman, young Mr. Shackelford absolutely nails this in "hole" 6 of his new book "Grounds for Golf" - it is titled "Temptation".  Perhaps it is just another word for confusion, multiple choices that are difficult to discern, whatever.  One way or the other, I urge you to go read that - it so perfectly discusses the exact premise of this thread it is scary, in a way.

TH

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Maybe I do agree with you, but "confusion" is not the right word. It's the difference between not knowing what your choices are and not being sure which is the best choice.

On the tee at 16 at RD you may be uncertain, ambivalent, unsettled, conflicted, undecided, unresolved, disturbed, outside your comfort zone, hungry, horny, wet or tired....but you aren't confused.

Bob  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()