Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mac Plumart on March 16, 2012, 12:17:52 PM
-
I am unsure why I love golf and golf courses so much, but I do. And because of this unique love, I’ve been fascinated with the grounds of golf and trying to learn as much as I can about them despite only taking up the game in 2007. My first eye opening experience came from playing my very first round of golf at a very nice/upscale club in Atlanta with a non-rated golf course and then a Top 100 rated golf course a few days later. From that moment on, I have been driven to discover why certain golf courses are elite and endlessly fascinating and others are not. I think the core of this is learning about golf course architecture.
Along these lines, I’ve tried to read everything I can on the topic. Here is a link to the golf books I’ve read to date (note recently I have been reading books on the Romantics and their beliefs and their writings…perhaps related to how I view a golf course, but perhaps not…that is what I am trying to discover).http://www.mrpgolf.com/books.html (http://www.mrpgolf.com/books.html)
And I’ve set out to see firsthand to see and experience a wide variety of golf course architecture. Here is a link to what I’ve played thus far. http://www.mrpgolf.com/MY_RANKINGS.html (http://www.mrpgolf.com/MY_RANKINGS.html)
I’ve also tried to track which courses I like and why. I’ve written two pieces on this so far. But I have another one I will be adding focusing on thrilling golf and unique greens.
This focus on why I like golf course gets specifically to how they make me feel. Tom Paul first suggested I track this aspect of it, and then Mike Nuzzo’s article on the types of golfers added further illumination to why certain courses made me feel certain ways. http://nuzzo.org/pdf/GAV5.pdf (http://nuzzo.org/pdf/GAV5.pdf) I think Mike is spot on regarding this, but I’ve heard people say he is wrong and that golfers embody all three aspects. Frankly, I agree with that…but I think Mike makes a broader point that, yes, all golfers have each of these characteristics but generally they favor one the most. Again, I agree. And I feel people’s failure to recognize these three types and their repercussions on golf course analysis leads to almost all the fights on GCA.com about golf courses.
My eye going forward is focusing on seeing certain golf courses in specific geographical areas. I need to play golf on kikiyu grass. I may not like it, but I need to experience it. I need to play golf in the Heathlands. I need to play golf in Australia and experience that sand. I need to experience the epic dunes of Ireland. I know there are a million more places I need to play, but those are at the top of my list.
Why do I feel like I need to experience golf in these different geographical areas? Because I know the land the course sits on affects everything about what is possible regarding golf course architecture. I’ll never forget my first round at NGLA. It had rained and rained and rained the night before my round and I just knew ground would be muddy and damn near unplayable. I was so bummed. But that was not the case. The soil there drained that water right off and the course was damn near ideal. That would never happen in GA with the clay based soil. So, that illuminated my brain why people praise sandy loam so much. Therefore, I need to experience golf in different locals to see how land, soils, climate, etc affect golf.
Furthermore, I totally understand the need to play specific golf courses over and over. I have plans for frequent plays on Pinehurst #2, NGLA, and The Old Course. If I can get annual plays on the first two and, maybe, semi-annual on the last…I think that would be a good thing for my education. I wish I could do more than that, but life gets in the way of total dedication to playing golf (although I’m giving it my best shot!!! :) )
So…what am I missing? What do I need to change?
In short, what are the best practices for learning about golf and golf course architecture?
-
Mac,
This sounds crazy and Tom Huckaby may return from the hinterland to smite me, but sometimes you don't need to play. Sometimes it's about being on a golf course and not worrying about your own shot. I've been chastised for saying so, but I'd much rather walk around The Old Course than play on the New. Epic golf trips are all well and good, but I don't think just playing great courses is the end all of trying to understand golf courses.
I think you also need to see a course getting built. That helps a lot.
-
Wow Mac, I loved that post, very inspiring indeed. For me, I took up an interest in GCA because I wanted to improve my game and I felt like I better understand the course more then just knowing the number to the flag. You covered the main points well and I think that if most could follow your path they would be satisfied with their connection to GCA.
-
Mac,
I also gained some insights from Nuzzo's article. It gave me a context for looking at courses myself and interpreting the opinions of other golfers, especially the ones that I play with regularly.
-
When playing I continuously putt if ok with playing partners. That gives me more time to look/walk around the green looking for old cups to ascertain pinnable areas and their potential impact on play. I also sketch features I like, particularly internal green contours. The next day I attempt a stick drawing of the routing to cement my memory. I closely watch other players, particularly better players to see how they play a hole. I play very quickly and look around a lot. Rarely fool with a camera.
Just a few random thoughts.
Bogey
-
Travel to as many countries that you çan would be my advise.
-
One reason that I find myself happier than most critics is that I tend to learn like a dog screws. Anyone who has played with me knows exactly what I am saying. I honestly do not understand the need to do anything more than enjoy each individual moment the course presents. Trying to soak in too much at once gets my mind all knotted up and if you have ever owned a dog you know that leads to nothing but trouble.
I can't imagine a movie critic, whose responsibility it is to reveal which movies are best seen, stopping a movie midway and changing seats. Your angle is your angle, embrace it and go with the flow.
-
Barney, we both know you're not a critic. You're a golfer. I'd give anything if I could trade.
Bogey
-
One reason that I find myself happier than most critics is that I tend to learn like a dog screws. Anyone who has played with me knows exactly what I am saying. I honestly do not understand the need to do anything more than enjoy each individual moment the course presents. Trying to soak in too much at once gets my mind all knotted up and if you have ever owned a dog you know that leads to nothing but trouble.
I can't imagine a movie critic, whose responsibility it is to reveal which movies are best seen, stopping a movie midway and changing seats. Your angle is your angle, embrace it and go with the flow.
I'm closer to John K. in this respect. Hit shot, note shot and how it reacts. Watch other players in group and follow their shots. Repeat.
-
Thanks for the thread Mac. I'm in bed sick today so please allow me to ramble on a bit. :)
sometimes you don't need to play. Sometimes it's about being on a golf course and not worrying about your own shot.
Truer words have never been spoken, Ben. There were many a moment when I was on a golf course in my capacity as an employee where my mind would wander off into golf architecture dreamland. My last job in golf was as GM of a brand spanking new 9 hole mom and pop where most mornings I would arrive at the crack of dawn to open up the course. The first task was to fill the igloo with ice water and run it out to the 5th tee, the farthest point from the clubhouse. Three things I'd do on the drive back to the shop: stop at maintenance and say good morning to Chuck the mechanic; then drive over to the 9th tee and sit and stare at the ducks while the steam was rising off the pond. I would sit in awe of the beauty of the place. The undulations in the fairway, the shaping of the bunkers up ahead which were sort of a grass faced Rossnor style; and lastly, I would drive over to the practice green and wait for my friend David Helton to finish up with his clean up lap. He'd cut the engine and we'd talk, just the two of us, alone out on this gorgeous green field with a creek flowing through the middle of it. David was the super from the very beginning, overseeing construction and grow-in of the golf course. He understood golf architecture and he shared a lot of his knowledge with me. The 3 years I spent there were incredible for a lot of reasons. Mostly because I learned everything I possibly could about a golf course. How to play it, how it was built, how it was maintained, how to market it, and how to have fun with what we had. Just a little 9 holer in Seymour, Tennessee owned by a couple of golf fanatics who gave me the reigns and said giddyup! I spent the winters there ordering golf architecture books on amazon and reading links magazine and this website called golf club atlas. This was 3-4 years before I joined the dg. Good times. Sorry for the long post. It was nice to go back and think about the days when the subject really excited me.
-
I never thought a '47 Petrus could possibly be significantly better or dramatically different than an '83 Mouton......until I tasted it...
-
I doubt one can reduce the answer to a checklist.
-
Mac,
I debated starting a new thread for this, but decided to include it here instead. I think your question is a good one because it sort of asks the question, "Why are we here"...literally speaking as it refers to being an active member of this website. In my mind the reality is there is no one right answer and as David says there really is no one-size-fits-all checklist.
Its all about "What blows your hair back" to quote a line from Good Will Hunting....and pursuing whatever it is that really interests you.
But even more, the essence of this site, at least to me is summed up far better than I ever could, which comes from the same movie...which to me its all about getting out there, seeing stuff, taking it all in, processing it and actually interfacing with something or someone new:
Sean McGuire (Robin Williams): You’re just a kid, you don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about.
Will: Why thank you.
Sean: It’s all right. You’ve never been out of Boston?
Will: Nope.
Sean: So if I asked you about art, you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo. You know a lot about him; life’s work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? I bet you can’t tell me what it smells like in the Cistine chapel. You’ve never actually stood there and looked up with that beautiful ceiling, seen that.
If I asked you about women, you’d probably give me a syllabus of your personal favorites. You may even have been laid a few times, but you can’t tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy.
You’re a tough kid. I ask you about war, you’d probably throw Shakespeare at me, right? “Once more into the march, dear friends.” But you’ve never been near one. You’ve never held your best friend’s head in your lap and watch him gasp his last breath, looking to you for help.
I ask you about love, you’d probably quote me a sonnet. But you’ve never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable, known someone who could level you with her eyes. Feeling like God put an angel on Earth just for you, who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn’t know what it’s like to be her angel, to have that love for her be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn’t know about sleeping sitting up in a hospital room for two months holding her hand ’cause the doctors could see in your eyes that the terms visiting hours don’t apply to you. You don’t know about real loss, ’cause that only occurs when you love something more than yourself. I doubt you’ve ever dared to love anybody that much.
I look at you, I don’t see an intelligent, confident man, I see a cocky, scared-shitless kid. But you’re a genius, Will, no one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you, but you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine. You ripped my life apart.
You’re an orphan right? Do you think I’d know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally, I don’t give a shit about all that because you know what? I can’t learn anything from you I can’t read in some book unless you want to talk about you, who you are. And I’m fascinated, I’m in. But you don’t want to do that do you sport? You’re terrified of what you might say. You’re move chief.
-
One reason that I find myself happier than most critics is that I tend to learn like a dog screws. Anyone who has played with me knows exactly what I am saying. I honestly do not understand the need to do anything more than enjoy each individual moment the course presents. Trying to soak in too much at once gets my mind all knotted up and if you have ever owned a dog you know that leads to nothing but trouble.
I can't imagine a movie critic, whose responsibility it is to reveal which movies are best seen, stopping a movie midway and changing seats. Your angle is your angle, embrace it and go with the flow.
The dog sex is a good analogy. I just don't know why.
Anthony
-
Mac - one thing I'm sure of, best practices don't include slumping half asleep on the coach with a cup of coffee and a smoke watching the pros play yet another pga tour stop. I've tried that for years, and haven't learned a darn thing!!
But I think that sometimes it's best not to do anything at all. What I mean is this: You've played many courses, read many books, explored your thoughts and feelings and likes and dislikes and put them down on paper, travelled to the home of golf and played the great Scottish links, and asked many questions of the masters -- all of which is exactly what someone like Tom D did in the late 70s and early 80s, and before he'd written 'The Confidential Guide".
And what did Tom know/learn about gca back then that you don't/haven't now? I'd suggest not all that much -- maybe a few 'facts', maybe even a few 'theories', but not a whole lot. Instead, I'd suggest that the real difference between you is simply this: that at some point Tom said to himself "This is what I believe to be great golf course architecture", and then decided to fully trust and embrace that point of view and his own personal tastes and opinions; while you (and I, and many other 'students') never have.
We keep looking outside of ourselves and asking "What is it? Where is it?" I'm all for life-long learning and all that, but I wonder: when do you (or I or others) stop asking ourselves that question? When will we ever feel like we know enough to judge/decide for ourselves? I think the answer to that is binary: we either decide to to say 'yes' to our insights/opinions, or we don't.
Peter
-
If we’re talking about understanding the playability characteristics of golf course architecture and not the aesthetics, agronomy or engineering then as mentioned by Ben Sims, I find watching the course and other golfers can reveal a far greater variety of shot permutations than just playing it yourself.
Some of my most educational golf architecture experiences have been following the British Open on the classic links and observing the different players and how they interact with the course. Just as educational is chatting with fellow observers, and discussing their views on the different situations.
This year at the final day of the Dunhill Cup on the Old Course, I watched Rory and Graeme playing to the 14th. Graeme played his second to a safe lie and had a good look at the hole for his 3rd shot.
Rory went for broke and tried to hit the green with a driver off the deck and missed slightly to the right catching a steeper hump slowing his ball up and leaving himself a nasty lie. An interesting comparison and how the subtleties of the golf course can affect the outcomes.
On the 18th at TOC it was interesting how Rory chose to drive right and approach the pin avoiding the valley of sin but having to negotiate the trickier slippery down slope of the green, whereas others preferred to go left and either lob over or run through the valley of sin against the slope.
If you take the time to analyse and think in depth why such subtleties affect the play then you’ll not only learn you’ll also understand.
For the mellower view, sip some single malt simultaneously and enhance the sublime spirit.
-
Experiencing it first hand is the best.
-
For me, it was when I learned about function. They say form follows function, and I believe that is true with good design. When I see form that drove function, a lake above surrounding terrain, built up land forms that serve as places to chisel a bunker out of, I'm not a fan. Form that follows function well is invisible, function imposed on the land stands out, in a negative way, at least to me.
I think to really study architecture you have to have some idea about what it took to get the holes into the ground.
-
Mac, keep playing the greats, like reading the great books no reason to do much else. Read all the old interviews on the web site, many of the early ones are gems. Read many of Ran's Courses by Country, he has one of the best eyes in the world for GCA. For years I tried to read almost everything that Doak posted....
-
I never thought a '47 Petrus could possibly be significantly better or dramatically different than an '83 Mouton......until I tasted it...
You had the wrong Mouton by a year....
-
It may sound trite, but consider not thinking of your passion as an education or educational process. Try thinking more along the lines of playing a game. Don't worry so much about the specific fields of play and concentrate more on play.
Pay attention to how savy (generally older) golfers play courses.
Watch kids (of all abilities) whack it round.
Look for features rather than at holes. Try to find the one feature on a hole which makes the difference.
Keep an open mind about aesthetics - focus more on playability and aspects of function.
Pay attention to details such as transition zones, grass cut lines and how holes move into the background.
Look at the shaping and try to figure out how it may support the design.
Ask if less could have been built without integral loss to the design.
Look for good architecture on mediocre terrain.
Distinguish between good architecture and a good course.
Ciao
-
In short, what are the best practices for learning about golf and golf course architecture?
Golf must be played to be learned...diferent courses, conditions, same courses, diferent conditions...
Some here may believe GCA is objective and to a large degree it is and to some degree it isn't...you must experience architecture at 6 am and 6 pm, in the winter and in the summer and everything in between..you will find truths become truer over time
For great architecture is may sunny or it may be raining, listening for the Sub Air system is that great architecture? Natural light or light bulbs?
The ground (or canvas) is a large part of great golf and archirecture so follow the dunes.... ;)
-
Thanks for the inputs. Many of them I will try to incorporate immediately. I thought about typing up replys to everyone's post, but I thought they may be too long. But I did want to touch on what Peter said.
Peter I agree with the sentiment on your post. In fact it reminds me of an old saying...“A man who is dumb, but knows he is dumb is wise. A man who is dumb but thinks he is smart, is an idiot. A man who is smart, but thinks he is dumb is a fool.”
Or something like that.
And in that vein, I know what I know about golf courses and I know what I don't know. I've played many, studied many, and visit some in different climates. I can make observations and I am good at observing, so I am comfortable sharing what I see. But I haven't been involved in the planning, consturction, and maintenance of a golf course. So, I am not an expert.
And I wonder how many of us on this site are experts and how many of us simply try to act like one...rather than discuss observations they talk like they know it all. Like the John K's said, they are golfers not analyzers. Nothing wrong with that at all...in fact, I find that awesome. But my brain is naturally inclined to analyze. I analyze everything...all the time. Can't help it. So, I embrace it.
Thanks guys...great posts!!
-
Mac
First knowing how to play golf or which off-chute variation you favour, because they are different.
Melvyn
-
Read, watch, listen and ask questions after the first 3. Do not talk.
-
One of the best things you can do is to watch other people play.
I don't mean your normal golfing buddies -- their games are likely to be much like your own, and it's important to remember that what's good in golf architecture involves all golfers, not just you.
I mean to just sit down and watch random groups of golfers play a hole for an hour or so. I haven't done it often, but when I have, I've almost always learned something I didn't expect. You begin to understand that the key to how courses work is not what happens when people hit the shots they're supposed to hit, but the recovery shots that are presented when people DON'T play the hole by the book. Because most people never do play the hole like it's drawn up.
Caddying is another great way to learn the same things.
-
Mac, you have sure piled alot into a small time frame. I think my brain would hurt ;D. I have found that, over the years, as one experiences new things, the vantage point of the past may shift. I can recall looking at stuff many years ago and going back an seeing it in more recent times only to wonder about my original thinking.
I wouldn't try to make up for lost time by trying to cram it all in as fast as possible but rather, let it soak in over time. And "once and done" isn't a good way to assess things. You need to go back and reassess your orginal assessment. Then see if your focus is still the same.
As for places to experience, it looks like a trip to the desert SW is in order. The intersesting thing there is you can look at undeveloped land and extrapolate that to courses.
You may also wnat to try to invision just what did the architect have to work with. Going back and looking at pre-development aerials if they are available is often rather eye-opening.
Finally, don't get stuck on Marquee architects and courses. Just because someone else likes something, it doesn't mean it is your cup of tea. If you see famous course "A", search out another course nearby to try to discern similarities and differences in the courses, afterall, they will probably have similar original points of departure in topo, vegitation, and soils.
-
I never thought a '47 Petrus could possibly be significantly better or dramatically different than an '83 Mouton......until I tasted it...
You had the wrong Mouton by a year....
Yes, by the book, but the fact that every clown wanted the '82 made the '83 one of the best bargains ever and a dramatically underrated and overlooked vintage IMO. Kind of like some of our Hidden Gem courses...
-
One of the best things you can do is to watch other people play.
I don't mean your normal golfing buddies -- their games are likely to be much like your own, and it's important to remember that what's good in golf architecture involves all golfers, not just you. .....
For 98% of my golfing life, I have never played with a set group. What TD said here is one of the elements that maybe 8 years ago began to distinguish Riverfront form all the other courses i have ever played.
Another thought...
If you want to be a Physician, you have to take Organic Chemistry ... and in this field a foundation in Landscape Design. (yipes controversial statement!!)
-
I mentioned I considered responding to each and every post, but decided that would be too long. But with Tom Doak's post, I feel that posting my response to Ben Sims' post is fitting. As Tom, Ben, and many others touched on the idea of watching others play.
Ben…
I gotta tell you, I respect you a great deal. I think you have true passion for golf course architecture and I respect the way you are going about pursuing your passion. I wish you well as you turn your passion into your profession.
In regards to your post, you say: “Sometimes it's about being on a golf course and not worrying about your own shot.”
I am with you. I wish like hell I could caddy, but with my legs I simply can’t. But I think I would be good at it and it would be awesome to watch others play a golf course (hopefully a good one…like say The Old Course) again and again. That would be a dream come true. (As a side note, many of your touch on this aspect one way or another…and I agree with those sentiments). I will seek to observe others playing in some capacity, however, as I think it is a great idea.
Additionally, you say, “I think you also need to see a course getting built. That helps a lot.”
Yep, agreed. I hadn’t thought of that as a goal I need to pursue. But I agree. I will add it. I saw some great things at Rivermont when Chris invited me out to watch holes 7, 8, and 9 be transformed. And it is a kick to see Dismal II come around…but I only get out there to see its progression rather than being involved from hair brained idea to fully functioning golf course. Again, great idea!!
-
Mac - I think you've gotten a lot of excellent and practical guidance/advice; so that allows me to be a pain in the ass and reference an idea from my recent essay, i.e. change the character of the knower and you change to capacity to know/see. As long as you are looking for objective 'facts', the all important subjective experience will seem somehow shallow and/or lacking. I mentioned someone like Tom D earlier because I think that -- when you get right down to it -- he simply had the courage/independence of mind and just plain moxie to say "THIS is my subjective experience, and it is WORTH something". In the world of creative writing, that's called writing with AUTHORITY. No one and no thing can grant you that authority -- you have to assume it. IMHO.
Peter
-
Peter,
Great post. I thought of two things while reading it.
1. I'll reiterate what Peter says about making it your own. Write as though you have the authority to speak on your behalf. Be succinct, and write as an expert. You've earned it.
2. An academic approach to golf architecture will only get you so far, and that's what Peter is driving at.
There are very few things in life I do not have to think about while enjoying them. Basketball was the best. By age 23 or 24, basketball became this amazing unthinking thing: pure thought, no worry. I never felt better in life than when I was playing basketball, and I didn't have to think. Except how to beat you.
I started studying golf hole diagrams when I was maybe 11, started playing when I was 21, started seeking out the greatest parks to play in when I was 23. Not one of my biggest passions, but I've spent most of my life watching the ball fly and bounce. I don't get totally lost in my golf thoughts. It's a demanding game, but I try my best to notice everything that is happening.
Transcend conscious thought, but understand the physics of the game. That's all there is.
-
Also, there is just as much to be learned from playing at the lesser park.
-
When I went to St Andrews in 2000, I spent my first afternoon there watching play at the road hole. I didn't see many pars and not a single birdie. I realize in observing play using an architectural focus, one probably should focus less on score and more an how the hole is played, but I came away thinking the hole was crazy hard, but couldn't wait to play it.
How many holes in the world are there where you can sit and watch golfing carnage and still consider the hole great? This architecture stuff isn't easy to figure out.
-
Write as though you have the authority to speak on your behalf. Be succinct, and write as an expert. You've earned it.
"Threadkiller" :D
I hear you and Peter on that, but I am of the mindset that understanding your surrondings when speaking makes all the difference. There is no way in heck I am an authority on this site. Urbina, Brauer, Young, Mahaffey, Klein, Doak (and many others) are. In other circles, I am the expert...I get that.
In all topics, including my business, I am of the mindset that once you think you know it all...you are about to learn a painful lesson. Work hard, listen to all credible sources, vett information, make your own decisions based on good information.
Look at this thread, I've already add a thing or two I need to add to my curriculum.
EDIT...and yes, I get that I am considered a bit "weird" or a "wacko" by some. Keith still makes fun of me for rubbing the fairway grass on the first hole at Shinnecock. Then following that up the next time I played with him at East Lake, by discussing the zyosia fairway grass with someone I was hosting...and, of course, rubbing that grass. :)
-
Write as though you have the authority to speak on your behalf. Be succinct, and write as an expert. You've earned it.
"Threadkiller" :D
I hear you and Peter on that, but I am of the mindset that understanding your surrondings when speaking makes all the difference. There is no way in heck I am an authority on this site. Urbina, Brauer, Young, Mahaffey, Klein, Doak (and many others) are. In other circles, I am the expert...I get that.
In all topics, including my business, I am of the mindset that once you think you know it all...you are about to learn a painful lesson. Work hard, listen to all credible sources, vett information, make your own decisions based on good information.
Look at this thread, I've already add a thing or two I need to add to my curriculum.
EDIT...and yes, I get that I am considered a bit "weird" or a "wacko" by some. Keith still makes fun of me for rubbing the fairway grass on the first hole at Shinnecock. Then following that up the next time I played with him at East Lake, by discussing the zyosia fairway grass with someone I was hosting...and, of course, rubbing that grass. :)
I watched the US Open at Olympic Club in 1987, and having played there, was amazed at the conditions for the championship.
That was one of the first times I rubbed the fairway grass while cruising through a fairway crosswalk...it was "tight" like the putting green at Lincoln Park! LOL
Since then have done the same while watching other tournaments/championships, eg. the Masters....
Agree with Pete that Tom Doak had/has the gumption to position his subjectiveness into his own sense of objectivity and absolutes (love the pic with the dog on the cover of the Confidential Guide).
But let's not over analyze as this is still all about the golf, I hope.
Love the your wackoness Mac!
-
Also, there is just as much to be learned from playing at the lesser park.
+1
-
Mac, I haven't been posting but a couple of thoughts from my experience:
- See average golf courses and learn from their flaws, particularly new golf developments. Don't be afraid to be a critic;
- Try to understand the different cultures of golf. It's a different game all around the world which drives design philosophies. Never underestimate the old scottish chap (or lass) who can only fly it 200 yards. Always try to read Melvyn & Sean Arble's posts.
- play with golfers of different abilities, age and strength.
- meet passionate people. A couple of hours with some of the guys that post here is like reading weeks of threads.
See you in a couple of weeks!
Michael
-
Read, watch, listen and ask questions after the first 3. Do not talk.
In other words..."He who speaks, does not know. He who knows, does not speak" - Lao Tzu
Mac, do what you are doing. Play golf with hickories. See the game as a history. Embrace that it used to take a "cut 3-iron" into the back pin location instead of a high 8-iron.
If you know the history, then you know where you are going. Do not forge the modern-classic reads either.
P.s. you are light-years ahead by playing hickories!!
-
Mac,
I think it would be good to take most of it with a grain of salt while realizing that most on this site "think" more into the architecture than the ODG's they are studying. I've seen experts form here show me where DRoss placed a long lost bunker when all it really was was a depression from dynamiting a tree. But if they write enough it will become history or fact when it was really neither. I like the old stuff as much as anyone but it is often "over thunk" on this site...IMHO...just keep it simple... ;)
-
For me there are three components:
1. Understanding golf courses from a playing perspective - what is good, what is bad and why? To me this is both a subjective and an objective exercise. I am never sure which predominates.
2. Seeing golf courses, good, bad and indifferent.
3. Learning about the technical aspects that are crucial but not as fun - safety, irrigation, drainage, construction techniques, maintenance practices, cart paths, environmental stewardship, etc. My interest in these areas is pretty much limited to how they affect playability. I am not sufficiently interested to learn how to actually build or maintain a golf course. I just want to experience them.
-
Mac,
I will start another thread on this, but do you have representative club golf over there, if so, pulling a young/middle/old players clubs around on a trolley for him/her, assisting in their mental and physical shot making and decisions. A good situation to observe.
-
Again, thanks guys...great stuff.
Carson...on the hickories...
I had heard everyone talk about how technology changed the game. The 460cc drivers, the ProV1's, are ruining the the old classic gems of golf courses. So, I figured I'd see for myself. I got some hickory clubs, gutta percha replicas, and had add it. I've also got persimmons, balatas, and a different era of hickories, and era specific replica balls as well.
Bottom line...Yep! It has changed the game. Although the principles are the same...get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible...the tactics for achieving that goal are quite different. And this has, without question, had a great impact on golf course architecture.
-
I think reading all of Clayman's posts will help your learning Mac. There is a bunker at PB with steps.
Anthony
-
Mac, keep playing the greats, like reading the great books no reason to do much else. Read all the old interviews on the web site, many of the early ones are gems. Read many of Ran's Courses by Country, he has one of the best eyes in the world for GCA. For years I tried to read almost everything that Doak posted....
Brad...I'm taking you up on this and reading (and re-reading) many of these older interviews. I agree with your gems statement! Here is a few nuggets...
Tom Doak 1999
Is there a feature from the Golden Age of architecture that you think is missing from course design today?
What’s missing most from modern golf course design is unpredictability. In the old days, when you had a severe feature within the property, how it was used determined the character of the design. Nowadays, most architects either erase it with a bulldozer, or route the cart paths around it.
Brad Klein 1999
Is there a feature from the Golden Age of architecture that you think is missing from course design today?
1. Good routings
2. Ability to play a golf course with one ball
3. Workable green contours
4. Attention paid to the 50 yards short of a green
5. Bunker contours and shape
Geoff Shackelford 1999
Is there a feature from the Golden Age of golf architecture that you think is missing from course design today?
G.S.: No one feature. Just basically all of the key features from the Golden Age. Subtlety, mystery, natural looking beauty created by man, variety, irregularity, forced carries, decision-making, encouraging recovery play, skillful incorporation of drainage, intelligently-contoured greens, plenty of short holes, prudent routings, etc…
Bill Coore 1999 Talks about their process for building a course.
Our working relationship at The Sand Hills was basically the same as for all of our courses. We work together in evaluating the site and agreeing upon a routing. Obviously, because of time constraints and Ben’s other commitments, I have more time to spend on the site. For that reason, it is generally my role to select individual golf holes that could be a part of any potential routing. Together, we assess these and any other potential holes and select the ones that will become the course.
After the routing is selected, we establish a general concept for the strategy and style of the individual holes and the course as a whole. This concept will include our thoughts regarding the holes’ strategy, the style of bunkering and the contouring of green sites and approaches. As much as the requirements for the permitting of the course will allow, we try to leave the details on contouring free to happen during the evolutionary process in the field.
From the start of construction on, ours is the job of establishing a starting point and giving guidance in the field. At times this guidance is specific, while at others it is minimal. We find ourselves editing the work of our associates in the field ever as much as directing it.
Gil Hanse 2000
1. Is there a particular feature that is generally considered antiquated (cross bunkers, punchbowl greens, etc.) you think is missing from course design today?
While the two you have mentioned certainly merit more use, I have become fascinated with an antiquated feature that hardly ever receives attention. It may not even be considered a feature in most people’s minds, but I think it warrants attention. I truly love when architects use natural landforms as a hazard on a hole. By this I mean the use of a ridge, hollow, swale, or crease in the ground to promote strategy. Very often it is an improved line of sight that is the reward. If a player can avoid the landform, then he is often rewarded with a clear line of sight to the hole, or a more fruitful angle from which to attack the green site. If the player happens to roll into the hollow, or winds up behind the ridge, then they have a shot that is more difficult on the psyche, while not being technically much more difficult than a shot played from the same distance with a clear sight line. If these features can be highlighted by incorporating them in the fairway (so that the hopefully firm and fast conditions) will exaggerate the plight of the ball, they can be a very dramatic feature.
I find this subtle form of hazard, as opposed to a pond, stream, or even a bunker, can provide for a great deal of interest and variety in a round of golf. If you take it back far enough, it is an extension of the true nature of links golf, where the uneven nature of the lie, stance, and sight (or lack thereof) are truly dependent on the vagaries of the natural landscape. In this day and age, there are not many architects who would contemplate creating a situation where someone’s vision might be partially obscured on a hole (how could it be the signature hole if you cannot see it). I think that the use of natural landforms to subtly penalize a golfer is a great throw back to lay of the land architecture. A few examples that pop into mind are the fairway contours on the 16th Hole at The National, 13th Hole at Pine Valley (left side), several of the holes on the Back Nine at High Pointe, 7th Hole at East Hampton GC, 12th Hole at Inniscrone, and I can imagine with some thought we could all come up with a much more thorough list.
I also feel that these types of hazards can be used to varying degrees in keeping with the wayward nature of the shot. A player who has nearly pulled off a good shot could perhaps just not see the putting surface, a bit further away, and only the flag is visible, way off line and the shot is blind into the green. The same can be used if length instead of line is the factor on the hole, from nearly long enough to short, with the commensurate penalty for each shot. The final comment on the use of this feature is that Mother Nature provides these types of landforms in an infinite array of sizes, shapes, and character. Creating a situation where they can be used with imagination, and in a fresh way on any site that possesses them. Hopefully, architects that can use them in resourceful ways will be blessed with those sites.
Ron Whitten 2000...
5. How do you think the period in course architecture (1985-1999) will be viewed in fifty years time?
The era of extreme excess, both in money charged, money spent and earth moved. One good recession will bankrupt most of what’s been built in this era, and one good drought will bankrupt the rest.
Mind blowingly good stuff!!!
-
You could do a lot worse than simply listening to Don Mahaffey. I don't know anyone on here who gets all aspects as well.
From my own experiences, I feel I learned more by watching the US Am every day at Oakmont for a week than I could have learned playing the course a thousand times. It was fun listening to JohnV's friends afterward as well.
-
Mac: Answer 16, David Eger Aug 1999. The strongest insights reveal themselves only to the worthy.
-
Mac - As one of the few 25 year olds in the world who is inching his way closer and closer to his gca dreams and goals here are the 3 most important pieces in my golf course education as someone who builds golf courses, and wants to continue to get better at it.
1. See and Play lots of golf courses: They dont all have to be top-25 or top-100 courses, but you should at least see a few of these. You should also see at least a few courses which you walk off #18 hating it. There should be a few of these courses (preferably on the better end) which you have played more times than you can remember where you can recount all the tiny nooks and cranies, and can read the greens by memory... By doing this you will develop a feeling for what you kinds of things you like and what you would never want on a course of your own. You will start to analyze what you are willing to go out of the way to see, and why.
2. Caddy: As others have said, watch others play is a good way to understand, but being on the bag is the only way to truly understand a players thought process. You will see the greatest variety of players this way. You will understand that there are a million ways to make the same score, that golf excites people in different ways, that people get different things out of the game. You will see how the course plays to certain types of thinking, how it really could be made more fun for all types of people and certainly find yourself in places where you wouldn't by chasing your own ball around all the time. You will never learn as much from watching people play as you will from being on the bag, and trust me, its fun.
3. Work on a Construction Crew: There is absolutely no better way to understand what a golf course really is until you grab a shovel and a rake, peel apart the layers. Any architect or super will tell you the 3 most important things to a golf course are Drainage, Drainage, Drainage, so until you have literally stood in a trench with your boots and shovel leveling out the bottom of the trench finding a way to get the water to flow downhill, you will never really understand what goes into a golf course. You don't need to be an monster on the equipment and an expert shaper to understand architecture, you need to understand the layers of gravel, stone, fill, top-soil, mix and how they compact bellow all the green stuff to truly understand what a golf course is.
Golf courses are living, breathing, evolving things, by all means supplement all of this by reading every book on the subject you can find (I sure have) but look at the people who get hired by the best architects out there... Until you have been in the bottom of the muddy trench, your education will never be complete.... not that it ever will!!!
-
Jaeger...
I sent you a PM thanking you for this post. Since that day, I've thought about this post quite a bit. I believe that post encompasses everything I am after and need in my quest. I can not thank you enough, but regardless...thanks!!!
Mac
-
Stop what you are doing, learn CADD, take an internship in a golf architecture firm, start clearing briars at Contentment, rally the resources to build a great practice facility with us.
Lester