Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Sean_A on April 29, 2010, 11:03:39 AM
-
Lets assume that the land which courses are built run the gambit from 1-10 on the land movement scale. 1 being dead flat (New Zealand maybe a 2?). 10 being OTT crazy - so crazy an archie is obliged to loads of fairway and green grade work (I am thinking mountain courses). 5 being pert near the a perfect piece of terrain for golf - some flat areas, some slightly crazy areas and stuff in between (maybe Rye or Deal?).
Now, my contention is that archies start out further toward 1 than the average GCAer. Meaning, most archies might look at a 7 or 8 on the scale and treat it like a 10. This could mean lots of fairway grading (I am assuming this sort of terrain will require a decent amount of green grading), containment bunkers, framing bunkers (to off-set blindness) and whatever else archies do to make their impact felt. My bet is that many GCAers would be just fine if some of that crazy land was just left and perhaps the rough kept low.
Is there an inherent difference as to how the GCA punter looks at architecture compared to the archie? Do folks get the feeling that if most archies had an inch with this sort of thing that they just couldn't help taking three if not six? If this is the case, is this the reason that so many courses fail to distinguish themselves from the crowd despite archies knowing that they need to allow the natural land to define the character of courses?
I have gotten to know Colt's work fairly well these past 10 years and if I was going to criticize the man's work its that much of it is the same. I see the same patterns repeated on courses. Now, some of this undoubtably is due Colt's huge body of work. Its tough to generate diversity with so many courses and in effect, in such close proximity. This may be a reason a find I like Colt's redos quite a bit. He seemed to be sympathetic to blending old with new - a trait I quite admire.
Anyway, this isn't meant as a slam on Colt and so I don't want this thread to head down that justification path. I was just using Colt as an example. Where as I might use Fowler as an example of the opposite of Colt. Fowler seems to have created a wide diversity of courses - I think because he allowed the land to dictate the design more than say Colt or Dr Mac. Sure, part of this could be that Fowler's portfolio isn't large, but at some point, especially when we look at the similarity of courses today, one must wonder.
Anyway, I would like some replies (especially from archies) because I could be all wet!
Ciao
-
Sean,
There's alot there to think about, but my first reaction going through was that it's awfully easy to sit behind our computers and suggest we'd do it different/better.
For example, the "10 - OTT crazy terrain" is probably worse and less usable for golf than the "1 - dead flat" piece yet you state that GCA'ers would trend higher on your continuum than the professionals would. You go on to indicate that tendency is a potential reason so few golf courses stand out. Standing out, by definition, means only a few will do so and I would suggest land decisions are one of dozens of reasons a course does, or does not, stand out. We've had that conversation many times.
My response to your contention/question is that in Golf Course Architecture, the architect must have a vision and the fortitude to stick to it...which sort of agrees with Tom Doak's comment about the most important person in the success of a golf course project is the client.
-
Now, my contention is that archies start out further toward 1 than the average GCAer. Meaning, most archies might look at a 7 or 8 on the scale and treat it like a 10. This could mean lots of fairway grading (I am assuming this sort of terrain will require a decent amount of green grading), containment bunkers, framing bunkers (to off-set blindness) and whatever else archies do to make their impact felt. My bet is that many GCAers would be just fine if some of that crazy land was just left and perhaps the rough kept low.
If I understand you correctly, this is probably my #1 complaint about golf courses: too much smoothing out of the land. I think it all gets back to the notion of fairness; it strikes many as unfair if two shots end up 5-10 feet apart and one yields a flat stance and the other an awkward stance. (And, to further the conundrum, as Tom D has pointed out, these same folks don't seem upset when one's wet and one's dry).
Re: Colt - two quick thoughts: 1) could it be the maintenance practices (and I include "restoration" attempts in this) have resulted in the similarity you note? 2) I think there is an inherent tendency in artistic field to have some sort of similarity; if one favors the result, it's called style, if one doesn't, it's called boring repetition. :)
-
Sean,
First, I have to tell you that I am having trouble deciding who to root for tonight, since the Wings and Sharks are two of my least fave teams, but I think I will go with the Wings. Good luck!
Second, yes that question(s) pose a lot to think about, and I think its a great topic. That said, the questions are formed IMHO about as well as a post oatmeal bowel movement, but when I have more time tonight, I will try to answer in detail. I think I know what you are driving at, but in general after routing, I look at each hole in terms of "dirt I NEED to move" (i.e.,
* increasing pitch for drainage,
* flattening fw to hold shots (generally under 7% cross slope)
* cutting for site lines and vision,
* cutting in relatively level green and tee pads on sloping ground,
* and sometimes, just to generate fill for those things even if the land didn't require this fw to be graded)
Then I consider dirt I may LIKE to move, including support for bunkers, mounding, fw contours for play, like speed slots, etc. I am usually conscious of meeting back to natural grade as quickly as possible. In apply a hole by hole match of my design principles to the actual land, I hope that each hole turns out unique, rather than scraping off all the topsoil and trying to grade everywhere, which I think is your basic premise with modern gca types. As always, I could be wrong.
BTW, yes, I doubt I would leave a lot of flat out crazy contours in fw areas, although I would leave some. After time, when your clients tell you that all balls collect in one area causing problems, you learn that in some cases, flatter is better, regardless of the aesthetic appeal of wild contours. And that is just what happens in many cases, since gravity is the law - too many balls collect in the low points and its a maintenance problem, rather than a "fairness issue" whereby two different shots all get the same result. That said, I do agree more golfers probably want to see some differentiation in their shots, with good getting good results and bad, well getting slightly less good results for me, and really, really terrible results for my opponent! ;)
-
Sean,
First, I have to tell you that I am having trouble deciding who to root for tonight, since the Wings and Sharks are two of my least fave teams, but I think I will go with the Wings. Good luck!
Today we are all Canadiens! But not Friday night. :)
-
bumping, hoping some archies and others in the industry will add.
-
Today we are all Canadiens! But not Friday night.
Not all of us George >:(
-
Sean,
I'm back, and hope to get this in without disturbing your pre-game ritual... Are you dining on Octopus tonight? Or Shark? (or Wings at Hooters because you don't get the game on the telly at home?)
I re-read your post and offer this -
Yes, the tree house would be willing to let wild contours stay to a greater degree than a professional archie. As I hinted above, we all have experience of how the wild contours don't work for Owners on an everyday basis, whereas a gca buff might play those contours once for the experience, and never know what troubles they may cause.
Not to mention, that if the buff was somehow involved in his first design, he might very well want to do as much spectacular and quirky holes as possible, whereas the seasoned gca is looking more for balance, practicality, etc., unless his client brief is to build a world class golf course (which it usually isn't, and even if it was, there would be some question as to how quirk, wild fw, etc., play in to that vision. But, any newbie in my office tended to put a lot of great ideas into their first project, perhaps too many for the good of the course.
Overall, despite some differences in view about what needs to be done with the land to make it a playable golf course, I think the buff and the gca would look at a nicely cleared piece of land and probably initially rate it the same as raw land. Like porn, we know it when we see it! We are not predisposed to leveling it any more than we need to for golf to be played, although, I would agree that many times, whether due to CAD, hand drawn plans the gca can't think in 3D as well as they should. And, as noted, the dozer guys are building with equipment meant to build long, relatively straight grades, so even the best ideas may not have always translated.
As to sameness, I think I have seen similar fw cuts at Beverly and White Bear out of Ross. It would be interesting to find the records and see if the same tractor operators were there on both projects! One of my great gca learning experiences was, BTW, had at Prairie Dunes, on the 10th hole. It was there that I noted that Maxwell had tied the green surround contours back as quickly as possible, and they reflected the angles of the existing grades more than the green itself. One of the real problems with green plans and building is that gca and dozer guys both tend to focus on relating the contours to the green edge, rather than the surrounding topo, if that makes sense.
Fazio, BTW also does a GREAT job of maintaining the existing edge contours and blending them. At the same time, he is as guilty as anyone of believing that most fw ought to be a gentle valley of a certain slope, to keep balls in play, but not have them all roll right back to the exact middle, so his hole middles get a certain degree of repitition.
I am not sure if that gets any closer to answering your question, but it is my thoughts right now.
-
Good posts, good thread, nice thread title, Sean.
I think architects see terrain differently than the rest of us do, and not only in the ways we've often discussed around here before. We see terrain and imagine playing a golf hole there; they see terrain and imagine creating/building a golf hole there. Our vision might be broader and more all-encompassing, but will prove (maybe more often than not) to lack practicality and maybe even long-term playability. Their vision has both elements, the creative and the practical, but for this very reason is more focused (or, in negative terms, narrow). Generally, I think nothing can be done about this, nor should it, i.e. for anyone who actually likes playing golf, ideas are fine but vastly more important are the built versions of those ideas, golf holes. But I do find myself thinking sometimes that many of our most experienced architects might benefit by occassionally tapping into their "Beginners' Mind".
Peter
PS - For several years I wrote one hour television biographies for our national broadcaster - with some success I suppose (good ratings and reviews, a nomination for our equivalent of the Emmy). But I found it a frustrating period, and one of the reasons was that -- from my perspective -- the experienced directors and editors I usually worked closely with had fallen too much in love with the then-new technology, eg digital/computer editing machines, post production magic. They were, from my perspective, more focussed than they realized on what they could "put on the screen" via that technology -- the special shot they could get with that high-end camera (or fix later in post) and the effects they could get with the expensive Avid editing system. And so I often found myself trying to slowly think through a series of ideas/potential ideas to make a tricky part of story flow well and communicate while the director and editor were rushing excitedly to 'solve the problem' via a 15 frame dissolve between two killer shots. Hey, maybe they were right and I was wrong, but with the technology able to 'solve problems' so quickly, I'm not sure we ever spent enough time grappling with ideas.
-
Peter,
Why shouldn't an architect look at each opportunity with the beginners eye and then build towards their experiences?
-
Jim - I think that would be THE goal, and a wonderful ideal to strive for. I just think it's a very, very hard thing to do, for anyone (not just architects), and I think that, ironically, the more success you've had the harder it gets.
Imagine yourself standing on the 1st tee at a tourament you've won before, and suddenly deciding (and being willing to decide) that you're not going to put your standard swing on your standard driver as you've done 1000s of times before, but instead you're going to pull out a 2 iron and swing it like Lee Trevino, and all because you just got a case of "Beginner's Mind". Now, I can't imagine you doing that, but me, on the other hand, I do it all the time, I re-vamp my swing yearly, monthly even, at the drop of a hat. Like just last week, for example, I started swinging like Fuzzy Zoeller. (PS -- And made my first ever EAGLE!!!)
-
But Peter,
Have you seen any still shots of Bobby Jones as a frail 8 year old boy? His body positions were nearly identical as a 28 year old winner of the impregnable quadrilateral...for what it's worth...congratulations, by the way...I sense many more in your future.
-
Peter,
Why shouldn't an architect look at each opportunity with the beginners eye and then build towards their experiences?
How would you feel if your airline pilot made an announcement that he was flying with a beginners eye, or that he wanted "try something, so fasten your seatbelts?"
-
Peter,
Why shouldn't an architect look at each opportunity with the beginners eye and then build towards their experiences?
How would you feel if your airline pilot made an announcement that he was flying with a beginners eye, or that he wanted "try something, so fasten your seatbelts?"
Are you serious?
-
Jim,
Sort of, but also being humorous, of course.
We have had many discussions about whether a gca ought to (or even can) have a blank slate when starting a design. I doubt you can design 50 golf courses and not come into a new design with at least some idea of what might work. Nor do I think the Owner hires you to ignore all your past experience to try something "really new." They hire us for our experience, although they do want some vision within that experience.
In general, the gca is a professional (and one with certain legal responsibilities for health, safety and welfare, albeit not quite as life threatening in most cases as airline flying) Gca geeks tend to forget that, thinking only of creating the next great hole/course in a conceptual vacuum. But, in reality, the job is to create the next great course within certain parameters, such as building to meet ADA regulations as discussed in another thread. And gca geeks tend to buy into the old "master builder" idea but in reality, getting a golf course built is a real team effort, with lots of parameters that require experience.
No doubt, maintaining a fresh viewpoint is important, though. I think most of us love the profession enough to do that, but its also important to maintain a certain professional detachment as well to get the job done.
-
Jeff,
We're on the same page, please read that sentence of mine again and contrast it to the flip side of the GCA Professional beginning a project by building all of the regulatory issues first and exclusive of any golf consideration and then backfilling in the features that make each hole what it is.
-
Jim,
Sadly, for every project where there are none of those, there are 100 where that is exactly what the gca has to do - the golf course is there to sell houses, provide flood detention, make a productive use of an old landfill, etc. As we all know, its chances of greatness are shot down right out of the box, but that is the real world of most gca's.
-
I guess it's true then, that we make our own reality.
Jeff, I know not every site is Pacific Dunes -- not even for me -- but do you really think there are 100 sites where engineering has to come first, for every one where you can route most of the course as the land lays?
-
I guess it's true then, that we make our own reality.
Jeff, I know not every site is Pacific Dunes -- not even for me -- but do you really think there are 100 sites where engineering has to come first, for every one where you can route most of the course as the land lays?
My home muni, built in the 30s, is about as hilly a course as I've seen (excluding actual mountain courses) and I don't think they thought engineering first back then. I'd rather play it than many or most of the modern courses in the Burgh.
-
TD,
Well, I just picked a round number to illustrate the point. Most would be mixed, I would suppose.
My last 3 new designs
Firekeeper - almost zero engineering issues, but we did have to avoid impacting any streams to avoid permits. We also had to locate the clubhouse based on which of two providers was cheaper and cheaper to connect, but otherwise, a free hand.
Bridges of Preston Crossing - Sell some houses baby, and provide a nominal amount of flood detention (mostly impacted the 18th hole where we enlarged a pond. (Note: Eventually had to pay an engineer to survey the lake after I made some field changes to save some trees. It turns out my revised design, which I engineered came out something like 0.02% short of the required detention. Luckily, the regulators let them take one swipe with a dozer to add some capacity, but that might not have happened in a more strict state.
Weeks Park (total redo) - Add a driving range near the parking lot for off the street revenue, balance C and F because it'st all flood plain, don't block views of surrounding houses.
Sand Creek Station - Sell some houses, baby, and add numerous ponds (mostly off tees to stay well out of normal play) to provide retention for 600 acre development and then some. Also, locate clubhouse to allow for circulation within a triangle of busy railroad tracks. Also, avoid high water table areas with routing. Figure out how to keep holes in active flood plain of Sand Creek from being damaged (We had to study what kind of floods it has - luckily it was a high volume, but slow moving creek. Had it been another kind of creek, our design solution might have been very different.
My only point is that there are always some engineering issues. Not all of them make us NOT use the land and contour, so its not an either or choice. But they do have impacts.
-
But Peter,
Have you seen any still shots of Bobby Jones as a frail 8 year old boy? His body positions were nearly identical as a 28 year old winner of the impregnable quadrilateral...for what it's worth...congratulations, by the way...I sense many more in your future.
Thanks much, Jim. From your mouth to god's ear....
I didn't know that about Bobby J, and your example helped me to better understand what you'd asked in the previous post. I think we may be thinking of Beginner's Mind a bit differently, but yours is the more plausible one (as evidenced by your exchange with JB)
Peter
-
Re: originality, I think it is very hard to be consistently original in any business that is remotely artistic. I had a friend who worked for me for a little while, when he was between jobs. He is super talented, and would come up with unbelievable designs giving minimal input. Unfortunately, every time a client came in to look at his work, they ended up changing it back to "text arched above appropriate sports graphic". Given that experience, I can't help but sympathize with the designer who short cuts the intermediate stage and goes straight for what he believes the client and the end user want. That's generally what I do in my t shirt biz.
Still, I hope there are a few artists out there who remain obstinate...
-
"Consistently original" is a terrific objective, but you would have to be a very low-volume producer to keep to that standard.
As I've said before, originality is also difficult in the world of commercial art, because your clients probably loved some other course of yours they played and they will ask you for similar things.
But, the way to be original in golf architecture is to use the land as you find it. I understand what Jeff is saying and would agree that more than 50% of golf courses are driven by engineering and permitting and other "non golf" issues, but the more you let yourself be guided by an engineering mandate, the harder it is to be original.
-
TD,
Well, I just picked a round number to illustrate the point. Most would be mixed, I would suppose.
My last 3 new designs
Firekeeper - almost zero engineering issues, but we did have to avoid impacting any streams to avoid permits. We also had to locate the clubhouse based on which of two providers was cheaper and cheaper to connect, but otherwise, a free hand.
Bridges of Preston Crossing - Sell some houses baby, and provide a nominal amount of flood detention (mostly impacted the 18th hole where we enlarged a pond. (Note: Eventually had to pay an engineer to survey the lake after I made some field changes to save some trees. It turns out my revised design, which I engineered came out something like 0.02% short of the required detention. Luckily, the regulators let them take one swipe with a dozer to add some capacity, but that might not have happened in a more strict state.
Weeks Park (total redo) - Add a driving range near the parking lot for off the street revenue, balance C and F because it'st all flood plain, don't block views of surrounding houses.
Sand Creek Station - Sell some houses, baby, and add numerous ponds (mostly off tees to stay well out of normal play) to provide retention for 600 acre development and then some. Also, locate clubhouse to allow for circulation within a triangle of busy railroad tracks. Also, avoid high water table areas with routing. Figure out how to keep holes in active flood plain of Sand Creek from being damaged (We had to study what kind of floods it has - luckily it was a high volume, but slow moving creek. Had it been another kind of creek, our design solution might have been very different.
My only point is that there are always some engineering issues. Not all of them make us NOT use the land and contour, so its not an either or choice. But they do have impacts.
Jeff, did you have to pipe all those ponds together and outfall to a public waterway through a filter system?
That's what Jerry Pate's team had to do here when we rebuilt Pensacola CC after Hurricane Ivan in 2004. It was quite a demanding design project.
-
Jeff, did you have to pipe all those ponds together and outfall to a public waterway through a filter system?
That's what Jerry Pate's team had to do here when we rebuilt Pensacola CC after Hurricane Ivan in 2004. It was quite a demanding design project.
Yes, at least at Sand Creek, and that is beginning to be pretty standard procedure. At Firekeeper, they wanted environmental sensitivity, but my initial proposal to run a drain pipe to pick up water parallel to the stream was met with some cost resistance. In the end, we simply left a buffer stip of native vegetation, but in some cases, enviro reggies dictate that you try to grade to move water away from the creeks. In those cases, leaving the land as it lay is not an option, since you are trying to move water uphill at least a little.
In other designs, you will see a bunch of small ponds at Giant's Ridge, and in the case of Sand Creek, those same ponds worked out pretty well as the filters before dumping right into the creek. And those ponds have a lot of native grasses to filter fw drainage before it gets to the pond.
I mentioned this here once, but I have started to see some suggestions that golf courses ought to be graded to less than 4% because at those slopes, chemical inputs are more likely to be deposited in turf rather than flow along to catch basins.......that will nail the leave the land as it is notion in more urban courses if that idea catches on. Of course my idea of adding lead to fertilizers to make them heavier, and thus drop out of flow, would probably be met with some kind of environmental resistance, too! ;)
-
All
Thanks for the replies. I spose PP hit on what I was getting at with his "beginner's eye" comment and Jeff and Tom D went at it from the opposite end with the practical side of design and the aspect of archies carrying their baggage (experience) from project to project. The reason I brought this thread up, and it isn't to denigrate Ian Andrew because I have never even met the man, was he comments on Pennard.
"Pennard is a golf course that makes me wonder if there can be too much quirk. There were a number of great holes like the 7th and 16th which featured some quirky features, that worked wonderfully because the holes were interesting to play, but also there was an opportunity to manage the more unusual features of the holes. But at Pennard, so many holes went beyond being quirky and in the case of a hole like the 17th simply cross the line into bad design.
The setting for Pennard is spectacular and you must play this course just to see the incredible views and golfing terrain. This is one of the most interesting links sites that I have seen.
The problem is with the routing and architecture. There are too many blind tee shots, too many safety issues, too many places where the grade falls the opposite way of the dogleg, too many steep slopes that run any shot into trouble, too many holes where there is no place to play to. I look at a course like Porthcawl that has all of those features, but the holes were enough well designed to accommodate them. The course is also so well routed that the rest of the holes provide some balance to the round. I think you can have quirk, but it can’t all be quirky, because at a certain point it moves from charming to disappointing. With a great architect Pennard would have been a much better course."
My immediate reaction to Ian's words were he wants to design out what makes Pennard, Pennard. In many ways a flawed course (almost the definition of funky) and somewhat polarizing, but for all that still one heck of a lot fun and essentially a one-off. Of course, Ian's opinions are his own and remain valid no matter how much I would disagree. What really struck me was "With a great architect Pennard would have been a much better course." Now, I admit to having read Ian's words on Porthcawl and thinking please don't wish to create another Porthcawl when Pennard has so much more character precisely because of the blind shots, reverse doglegs and severe slopes - characteristics which are dependent on the terrain. In other words, the land truly dictated the design. This is when I wondered if most archies would have treated this site like a 9 or 10 on the terrain scale when in truth its more like 6 or 7. Of course, the site is wild, yet at no juncture is the golfer required to make an onerous climb or undertake long walks between greens and tees - thanks to what I think is a great routing. To further this thought I remembered that on the now famous GCA (not officially sanctioned by GCA though!) Rankings Pennard came out quite high. Not top 100, but quite close. So it would seem despite its funky nature, Pennard seems to draw admiration and even respect from a decent percentage of GCAers.
Once again, I am not trying to drag anybody through the nettles. I am only interested in exploring the seeming difference of opinion between GCAers and archies on how sites should be treated and what that treatment (not forgetting my distaste for bunkers when I think other features could have done just as well) of that land may entail.
Ciao
-
Sean, I read what Ian said (and knowing him personally plus having read his sole-searching blog) I came away with his opinion being that the course design wasn't dicated BY the lay of the land but rather without taking it into account. There is rather not so fine line between quirk and bad. Too often, I read comments here where Bad is excused away with Quirk. To me Quirk is out of the ordinary but...it works. Bad is out of the ordinary but...doesn't work and ordinary is something that...just works.
I read lament in Ian's word. It's almost as if I can hear him wishing that such a great opportunity wasn't squandered. Because we archies have the ability to see "what could be" in our mind's eye, it's disheartening when we see what could have been...but isn't.
-
Like just last week, for example, I started swinging like Fuzzy Zoeller. (PS -- And made my first ever EAGLE!!!)
Congrats on the eagle, but more interesting is the idea of swinging like Fuzzy. Do you address the ball with the neck of the club, smoke a pack a round and whistle?
Bob
-
Sean,
Interesting observations on Ian's comments, especially this:
"In many ways a flawed course (almost the definition of funky) and somewhat polarizing, but for all that still one heck of a lot fun and essentially a one-off."
My first thought is whether Ian, influenced by his experience and Owners is thinking, as I would, "its great that its a polarizing one of a kind experience that every one should play once in a lifetime, but can my owner justify building that kind of golf course?"
Even Mike Keiser and a few others probably wouldn't go out of their way to build that. Even Old Mac works but is quirky to the general public, but the holes follow good principles.
Just my thoughts.
-
Tim & Jeff
Of course there will always be differences of opinion about greatness and poor design. That was the section of Ian's words which struck me most; the damning of a course and its designer because of its individuality. The seeming inability to see Pennard for what it is rather for what it is not - and I suspect most archies would because of where they see they would "soften" the course in preference of interventional design and fairness. It dos surprise me, but it shouldn't if my notion is correct. That is, that archies really look at land in a fundamentally different way than the keen amateur. It may even go back to the Behr/Crane debates and the concept of "fair golf". No matter its origin, I am convinced that most archies will honour this concept either knowingly or not. This idea of fair is so deeply ingrained that in effect archies believe they can and must improve on nature because the game of golf demands it (and believe it or not mant little touches have been done to Pennard to make it less unruly). The very odd thing is that it is ever so difficult to get into serious trouble at Pennard (a point completely over-looked by Ian) no matter the vagaries of the design except for in a few spots. In the irony of ironies (and archies should pay attention to this), easily the most troubling hole from a design perspective is the 17th. Yet, a great many punters point this hole out as their favourite of the bunch! Now I can't say whether or not a course is truly great, but I am not sure if this sort of descriptor carries any meaning with the truly unique courses of the world. Perhaps the GCA Fun Meter is a much more apt approach to use for courses of this ilk.
Ciao
-
"That is, that archies really look at land in a fundamentally different way than the keen amateur."
Sean Arble:
Of course they do. It's because they have experience with the various ways of altering terrain for golf holes as well as the other reasons to do so than just the actual playing of golf; that's something (that experience) amateurs don't have unless they happen to have spent enough time out on various sites and types of topography watching a fairly broad spectrum of architects with varying styles of architecture route and design up golf courses.
"It may even go back to the Behr/Crane debates and the concept of "fair golf"."
You're right, this very thing is pretty much at the heart of the Behr/Crane debate even if some on here can't seem to understand that such as Tom MacWood.
"No matter its origin, I am convinced that most archies will honour this concept either knowingly or not. This idea of fair is so deeply ingrained that in effect archies believe they can and must improve on nature because the game of golf demands it (and believe it or not mant little touches have been done to Pennard to make it less unruly)."
That is pretty much the point of Bob Crosby's essay, "Joshua Crane," and particularly what he said about most all golfers intuitively wanting to make golf courses inherently fair like other games whose playing fields require a good deal of definition, limitation and various standardizations (such as generally level surfaces) simply to accommodate and make more efficent via space and time those other games for their human opponents who must vie for a common ball because those games require that, unlike golf.
-
Tim & Jeff
Of course there will always be differences of opinion about greatness and poor design. That was the section of Ian's words which struck me most; the damning of a course and its designer because of its individuality. The seeming inability to see Pennard for what it is rather for what it is not - and I suspect most archies would because of where they see they would "soften" the course in preference of interventional design and fairness. It dos surprise me, but it shouldn't if my notion is correct. That is, that archies really look at land in a fundamentally different way than the keen amateur. It may even go back to the Behr/Crane debates and the concept of "fair golf". No matter its origin, I am convinced that most archies will honour this concept either knowingly or not. This idea of fair is so deeply ingrained that in effect archies believe they can and must improve on nature because the game of golf demands it (and believe it or not mant little touches have been done to Pennard to make it less unruly). The very odd thing is that it is ever so difficult to get into serious trouble at Pennard (a point completely over-looked by Ian) no matter the vagaries of the design except for in a few spots. In the irony of ironies (and archies should pay attention to this), easily the most troubling hole from a design perspective is the 17th. Yet, a great many punters point this hole out as their favourite of the bunch! Now I can't say whether or not a course is truly great, but I am not sure if this sort of descriptor carries any meaning with the truly unique courses of the world. Perhaps the GCA Fun Meter is a much more apt approach to use for courses of this ilk.
Ciao
Amazing post.
-
"Amazing post."
George Pazin:
Why?
-
Sean, perhaps what you are struggling with is the fact that because you, personally favor a design style or course, it's hard to see why others don't also. The biggest challenge in course design is how do you make it enjoyable and challenging for not only the vast arrray of skill levels but also incorporate all the ancillary aspects that reflect that in 99.99% of the cases, golf is also a business with a fairly expensive physical plant. And to stay in business, one has to insure that the revenue derived must exceed the expenses. The best insurance for this is produce a product that can appeal to the widest demographic.
If I were to distill a set of criteria that the GCA 1,500 could all subscribe to and build that course - would it be successful? Maybe - but, in doing so, I would have reduced the range of parameters. Don't get me wrong, this is a blessing, not a curse, when designing. But, unfortunately, most owners would rather you design for the masses, not the classes. The bottom 1/3 of the golfing demographic prymid is so much larger that the top 2/3. Casting a large net insures that you have the best chance of getting the most fish.
Is it ideal - hell no - just pragmatic. Sure, we would love to be able to design in a vaccum but the world doesn't work that way. Wish it did, but...
-
Tim Nugent:
That's a very realistic post.
However, the larger and more important question and issue, at least to me, is whether or not far more golfers can be lead somehow into appreciating golf and golf architecture that is just not so standardized in various ways as it has probably become. In other words, as a specific example, a return to some of the ways it once was long ago and certainly abroad.
I think this is one of the primary reasons Bob Crosby thought to write and was inspired to write his essay entitled "Joshua Crane." The fact is there were some incredibly fundamental issues to do with golf architecture but particularly golf itself that were addressed and explored in that fascinating Crane/Behr et al debate years ago that not enough paid enough attention to or considered carefully enough back then.
-
It occurs to me that there might be a whole lot of generality and that might affect anyone's thoughts. Its not general, its hole by hole, not a general state of mind. And, as Tim N points out, if the gca had to make too many of those decisions, it was either too tough a site for great golf, or a bad routing on great land and Ian seems to have gotten the general sense it was a case of one of those things.
When they started clearing the topo for the 13th at the Quarry (you can see the finished product in a recent thread link) there was some real wild topo, both natural and leftover from mining ops. It looked great as was but was very, very steep in the fw area. In that case, there were no other real practical problems, and the Owner was a bit worried about the quirk, but willing to go with my judgement.
I noodled on keeping it as is.
Then I asked myself if there was any strategy at all in a fw that rock and rolled everywhere. Of course, a few golfers could bang for the green and risk getting in the big bank (which was there) in front of the green. Or, if they layed up short of that, no matter where they hit, they would face any number of lies, with about half of then involving picking a wedge of downhill terrain to an uphill green, not a real fun shot and one where the result was beyond their control, no matter how well they planned and executed their tee shot.
Or, with a little bit of work, I could create and upper and lower shelf, giving the golfers of all levels a choice of playing to the smaller upper pad, and seeing the green or playing to the wider lower pad and having an uphill blind shot from a rolling, but doable lie, both of which are a distinct disadvantage, but not a real penal one.
So, in that particular case, I found that working the contours (which were too steep for a fw) improved the golf at the expense of the terrain. I was very tempted to leave them as is,or soften them just a touch, but started considering the golf over the mantra of "using the natural terrain" and think I made the right decision, but it was a hard one.
So, the question to Sean or others is, would you have left that terrain in its quirky fashion, giving the golfers a fun look but perhaps a harder shot no matter what and no real options, or would you architect it up to give some strategy or choice?
(In the voice of Karl Malden....."What would you do? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"
-
It occurs to me that there might be a whole lot of generality and that might affect anyone's thoughts. Its not general, its hole by hole, not a general state of mind. And, as Tim N points out, if the gca had to make too many of those decisions, it was either too tough a site for great golf, or a bad routing on great land and Ian seems to have gotten the general sense it was a case of one of those things.
When they started clearing the topo for the 13th at the Quarry (you can see the finished product in a recent thread link) there was some real wild topo, both natural and leftover from mining ops. It looked great as was but was very, very steep in the fw area. In that case, there were no other real practical problems, and the Owner was a bit worried about the quirk, but willing to go with my judgement.
I noodled on keeping it as is.
Then I asked myself if there was any strategy at all in a fw that rock and rolled everywhere. Of course, a few golfers could bang for the green and risk getting in the big bank (which was there) in front of the green. Or, if they layed up short of that, no matter where they hit, they would face any number of lies, with about half of then involving picking a wedge of downhill terrain to an uphill green, not a real fun shot and one where the result was beyond their control, no matter how well they planned and executed their tee shot.
Or, with a little bit of work, I could create and upper and lower shelf, giving the golfers of all levels a choice of playing to the smaller upper pad, and seeing the green or playing to the wider lower pad and having an uphill blind shot from a rolling, but doable lie, both of which are a distinct disadvantage, but not a real penal one.
So, in that particular case, I found that working the contours (which were too steep for a fw) improved the golf at the expense of the terrain. I was very tempted to leave them as is,or soften them just a touch, but started considering the golf over the mantra of "using the natural terrain" and think I made the right decision, but it was a hard one.
So, the question to Sean or others is, would you have left that terrain in its quirky fashion, giving the golfers a fun look but perhaps a harder shot no matter what and no real options, or would you architect it up to give some strategy or choice?
(In the voice of Karl Malden....."What would you do? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"
Jeff
My inclination would be to keep it as it was because not everything in architecture has to "improve the golf" - such a subjective term if I understand it correctly. However, that decision would also depend a lot (throwing out all technical considerations for sake of argument) on the remainder of the course. If there was already loads of funk I could easily be persuaded to soften that hole - it just depends. To get back to Pennard's 17th as a relative example, I would certainly be in favour of softening the drive zone. There is plenty of other funk about and I never liked the idea of a blind tee shot where it is very possible to lose a ball. Of course the club did build a VERY clumsy little landing area in the middle of the fairway and it does help, but more needs to be done. None of the other blind shots at Pennard can land the golfer in trouble with the relatively high probability of losing a ball because "I didn't know".
Tim
A great many golfers appreciate Pennard and many other "non-standardized" courses. These are not world beater courses in terms of rankings, but for golfers who actually pay to play golf it is clear there is a place for this sort of throw-back golf. IMO, most archies are more conservative in design than the golfer would be willing to accept and that there are a whole host of reasons for this.
Ciao
-
Sean, what would that "whole host of reasons" be?
Unfortunately, here in the States, it seems that the players/members who blame their poor play on the design(er) are the loudest ones in the clubhouse. And generally being architectualy challenged (from a knowledge standpoint) and having been brainwashed into believing 'golf should be fair!', they will pounce on anything that deviates from the norm. In that respect, I submit one of those reasons would be Self-preservation.
Personally, I would rather have a course with quirks (as long as they are 'good' quirks (Prestwick, North Berwick) as they keep the golf intersting. But others like it safe and predicitable. And I feel I (and you) are in the minority.
As for Penard, I still feel that Ian just had a sense of a missed opportunity, that the course wasn't all it could be. Granted, a host of players like it enough to keep the doors open but is that the sole criteria. Or do they come in spite of the quirk? If a certain percentage of golfers didn't have a masochistic tendancy, would Pete Dye still be doing courses?
-
Sean,
I am not familiar with Pennard (and you are not familiar with the Quarry) so this debate is somewhat pointless. As we both say, "It depends". There is always a balance in my mind and depending on how that balance tips the scales in any given situation is how the hole should end up. That many would come to different conclusions is one of the beauties of gca, no?
Did you think the Wings were jobbed by the Zebes last night?
-
Sean, what would that "whole host of reasons" be?
Unfortunately, here in the States, it seems that the players/members who blame their poor play on the design(er) are the loudest ones in the clubhouse. And generally being architectualy challenged (from a knowledge standpoint) and having been brainwashed into believing 'golf should be fair!', they will pounce on anything that deviates from the norm. In that respect, I submit one of those reasons would be Self-preservation.
Personally, I would rather have a course with quirks (as long as they are 'good' quirks (Prestwick, North Berwick) as they keep the golf intersting. But others like it safe and predicitable. And I feel I (and you) are in the minority.
As for Penard, I still feel that Ian just had a sense of a missed opportunity, that the course wasn't all it could be. Granted, a host of players like it enough to keep the doors open but is that the sole criteria. Or do they come in spite of the quirk? If a certain percentage of golfers didn't have a masochistic tendancy, would Pete Dye still be doing courses?
Tim
You just noted one, self-preservation. All the reasons given for not liking this that and the other are really about self-preservation - and that is fair enough, but I would prefer not to hear stories about respecting the land etc etc. My interest in this subject isn't about funk VS staid - there is a time and a place for both. It is about using the land to construct courses. If there is wild land about and a course with little input can be created which uses that land as its central focus yet offers short green to tee walks and no taxing climbs, why would an archie try to create something not akin to the property? This is one reason why I think most archies pay lip service to the concept of the land dictating the design when they don't really mean that at all. When i look at Fowler courses which can in no way be lumped into a descriptive category other than the land was the focus I wonder how many archies really embraced this concept. I am guessing very, very few and from my perspective it is an awful shame if given a site as unique as Pennard. I have always said that if Pennard was in the USA it would be ruined. The course would be banged into a "fair test", sit next to a huge clubhouse with tariffs to match and a grand hotel which meets every need. So yes, some could look at Pennard as a missed opportunity while others may take the view that Pennard has done it exactly right and that only luck saw this course built 100 years ago rather than today. For me, it all gets back to the land and when that land is screaming funk the course should be funky. Its not as if golf has too much funk that a very small percentage of funky courses can't be seen for what they offer even if they may be not necessarily good design as defined in today's terms.
Jeff
The Wings haven't had much luck with the refs, but so what? If they score more goals and play BETTER DEFENSE no ref can alter the outcome. In a word, the Wings dropped two games because they didn't deserve to win.
Ciao
-
That's a really good and clear post, Sean. I wish I hadn't used the term 'beginner's mind' -- it seem to lead to debates about craft (engineering) vs art; and between the practical/popular vs the impractical/purist. I don't think a beginner's mind means that one has to ignore the craft vs art distinction; more so that one maybe tries to transcend that distinction ...with fresh eyes as it were. A golf course, any golf course, isn't one of the ten commandments, and it isn't like a law of gravity. What a golf course "is" isn't a fixed and immutable idea/principle. It's a construct, usually within agreed-upon parameters and conventions. So maybe once in a while it's good to open oneself up to looking at the land/a site with eyes not clouded by traditional parameters and conventions.
Peter
-
"Amazing post."
George Pazin:
Why?
Hi Tom -
Sorry I didn't have time to expand on this, but I don't really need to, given how Sean has further explained his position. I just feel there are a lot of deep conceptual issues Sean noted in the post I quoted.
This part in particular:
The very odd thing is that it is ever so difficult to get into serious trouble at Pennard (a point completely over-looked by Ian) no matter the vagaries of the design except for in a few spots. In the irony of ironies (and archies should pay attention to this), easily the most troubling hole from a design perspective is the 17th. Yet, a great many punters point this hole out as their favourite of the bunch!
strikes me as very simple and yet very deep thoughts.
-
So maybe once in a while it's good to open oneself up to looking at the land/a site with eyes not clouded by traditional parameters and conventions.
Peter
I don't think we're as far apart as you might...and I think "The Beginner's Eye" is a very good term/concept in this discussion.
I went off-course with Bobby Jones because his is the only example I know of that ties the experienced veteran back to their beginnings in a craft...it probably happens in all activity.
The real debate seems to be starting with the beginners eye and working towards the practical or beginnig with the practical and trying to add in the creative.
My argument would suport starting with the beginners eye, but probably leads to more frustration on the part of the designer...