[Sean_A]

I find it very interesting that the main aspect of this thread under most scrutiny is aesthetics.  Given that, I would have thought that in addition to figuring out how an inland course can at least be interesting and challenging, if not somewhat living up to the standards of a links, what the great heathland archies (and Colt was certainly the the greatest) gave us was a sense of aesthetics which in addition to the above, essentially confirmed that golf can be successfully played inland.  From this perspective, I would disagree with TomP and say that aesthetics are important even if their impact on playability is limited.  Having said that, I also believe that folks under-estimate the impact aesthetics have in making courses more challenging than courses which fail to rest in the land comfortably.  And for this reason, I am against the use of yardage aids because it goes a long way toward negating the playing benefits of a well executed natural looking course.  That isn't to say that a more manufactured look can't be just as good, only that I believe it is that much tougher for the archie to pull it off.

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

I agree with using yardage aids as detracting from the integrity of the game.  However, there is only so much a number can do to aid a golfer's perception of such 'natural quirk.' 

I think every golfer has a different definition of aesthetics, but it seems that the most 'aesthetically pleasing golf courses are the ones created with regard to natural surroundings.  Raynor achieves this well at Yeamans Hall, that is for sure.  Ultimately, aesthetics are important, but I think they go beyond the typical definition of a course being 'pretty' or having great views.  Those are things over which a designer has limited control.  Aesthetics as they apply to golf course architecture can only be defined as how well an architect works with the land.  This is one of the most important aspects to designing a golf course IMO, and it is seen with great success at my three favorite courses (Garden City, Yeamans Hall, and The Country Club).

[Sean_A]

I agree with using yardage aids as detracting from the integrity of the game.  However, there is only so much a number can do to aid a golfer's perception of such 'natural quirk.' 

I think every golfer has a different definition of aesthetics, but it seems that the most 'aesthetically pleasing golf courses are the ones created with regard to natural surroundings.  Raynor achieves this well at Yeamans Hall, that is for sure.  Ultimately, aesthetics are important, but I think they go beyond the typical definition of a course being 'pretty' or having great views.  Those are things over which a designer has limited control.  Aesthetics as they apply to golf course architecture can only be defined as how well an architect works with the land.  This is one of the most important aspects to designing a golf course IMO, and it is seen with great success at my three favorite courses (Garden City, Yeamans Hall, and The Country Club).

JNC

I think we are saying the same thing - essentially.  I do agree that yardage aids have a limited impact on negating design concepts - especially those which aesthetically fit well with
the land.  However, I think the entire element of yardage (of which yardage aids are most likely a by-product), length of holes, par, turning doglegs, measuring yardage etc has been very detrimental to design. 

When top designers mention courses that are great, but then qualify their greatness with remarks about the shortness of the course, we have problem.  Even though I am not a fan of tech roll-back, I would certainly support the idea if it meant yardage and all its permeations were relegated to just one of several design elements rather than one of the most important (if not the most important) design elements.  However, I don't believe any tech roll back can acheive this.  Sorry if it sounds like I am all over the place with issues, but I think they are all related and wrapped into the big picture.

BTW  What is your first name?  I feel like I am having a discussion with a French football team: JNC Lyon.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

What U.S. courses DON'T rest in the land comfortably ?

Of those courses, how do their aesthetics fail ?

[JNC Lyon]

I agree with using yardage aids as detracting from the integrity of the game.  However, there is only so much a number can do to aid a golfer's perception of such 'natural quirk.' 

I think every golfer has a different definition of aesthetics, but it seems that the most 'aesthetically pleasing golf courses are the ones created with regard to natural surroundings.  Raynor achieves this well at Yeamans Hall, that is for sure.  Ultimately, aesthetics are important, but I think they go beyond the typical definition of a course being 'pretty' or having great views.  Those are things over which a designer has limited control.  Aesthetics as they apply to golf course architecture can only be defined as how well an architect works with the land.  This is one of the most important aspects to designing a golf course IMO, and it is seen with great success at my three favorite courses (Garden City, Yeamans Hall, and The Country Club).

JNC

I think we are saying the same thing - essentially.  I do agree that yardage aids have a limited impact on negating design concepts - especially those which aesthetically fit well with
the land.  However, I think the entire element of yardage (of which yardage aids are most likely a by-product), length of holes, par, turning doglegs, measuring yardage etc has been very detrimental to design. 

When top designers mention courses that are great, but then qualify their greatness with remarks about the shortness of the course, we have problem.  Even though I am not a fan of tech roll-back, I would certainly support the idea if it meant yardage and all its permeations were relegated to just one of several design elements rather than one of the most important (if not the most important) design elements.  However, I don't believe any tech roll back can acheive this.  Sorry if it sounds like I am all over the place with issues, but I think they are all related and wrapped into the big picture.

BTW  What is your first name?  I feel like I am having a discussion with a French football team: JNC Lyon.

Ciao

I agree that yardage takes a lot away from the game.  It's like many things in the game where people could fathom going without it (people couldn't imagine playing with persimmon woods or 13 stimp greens), but it really wouldn't take much to bring it back.  the argument that "taking away yardages would be unfair to many golfers" is ridiculous.

John Lyon

[TEPaul]

" From this perspective, I would disagree with TomP and say that aesthetics are important even if their impact on playability is limited."


Sean:

I'm not saying and have never said aesthetics, at least the aesthetics of real naturalism, aren't important; all I've ever maintained is they are not all that is important to good golf architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()