Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Dan Kelly on June 04, 2003, 03:01:30 PM
-
In some current thread, someone (sorry; can't remember who) cites Tom Doak to this effect:
Most dual-fairway holes fail because the smart play is (or at least should be) too obvious to most golfers. The choice isn't confusing enough. (I presume the same could be said of most holes with mid-fairway hazards.)
Which led me to this -- and perhaps this is exactly what you guys mean, and nothing more, when you talk about "strategic" architecture (an idea I've always had trouble getting my arms around):
Isn't the ideal dual-fairway hole one where "THE [emphasis added] choice" NEVER becomes obvious -- where, every time a golfer came to the hole, he would stand on the tee and weigh his options, given all of the current conditions (the wind, the firmness of the turf, the pin position, the state of his game), and where, one day, he might go one way, and the next day, he'd go the other -- even if the conditions on the two days were identical!?
Take it further: Isn't that the description of the ideal hole of every sort -- short, long and in-between?
THESIS:
The essence of great architecture is a series of confounding choices (how aggressive to be, how "safe" to be), from tee through green on every hole.
Is confusion the essence of great golf-course architecture?
-
Dan, I absolutely agree with you. Intermingled in with all the personal crap on those other threads, that's exactly what I've said, several times. The less I can figure out a hole definitively, the greater it is in my book.
The problem with all of this is that as SPDB said elsewhere (parphrasing), choices are one thing, execution is another. That is very true. Knowing the proper choice doesn't mean one's going to make it happen.
Thus the value of this diminishes, I guess.
Still, being made to think is always better than mindlessly firing away, the way I look at the game anyway.
TH
-
Dan and Tom,
As an example, our course has a tree on hole #10. Par 5, 500 yards-ish....tree is only 130 yards off the tee, but it's smack dab in the "ideal" line to the fairway. It's tall. Whether it's confusion or indifference, the player who doesn't decide what they will do with the tree, either draw, go over or fade, seems to inevitably get gobbled up. Discussion has arisen as to whether said tree should stay or go, but it's Dans premise exactly as to why it still stands: confusion affects the swing of the player.
Club selection is a common area where confusion almost always makes for a poorly executed shot.
Is "Confounding Choices" the essence of great architecture? I'm not sure that I would want 18 holes straight of being confounded, but it most certainly has it's place.
Joe
-
The problem with all of this is that as SPDB said elsewhere (parphrasing), choices are one thing, execution is another. That is very true. Knowing the proper choice doesn't mean one's going to make it happen.
I think you're not quite getting my point, Tom IV.
I'm hypothesizing that the essence of great architecture is the presentation of a series of confounding choices -- on every shot of every hole -- such that there IS no "THE proper choice."
One's choice one day might be the exact-opposite of one's choice the next day -- depending on the conditions, INCLUDING the condition of one's game and the relative likelihood that the condition of one's game would allow one to execute the choice one has made.
-
I see the issue as one of being "conflicted" rather than being "confused," but I agree with the premise. When I'm not sure which of my choices is the better (or best) one, it takes that much more concentration to execute my choice. I don't think I feel conflicted often enough on most courses.
-
No, I get you Dan - I just threw that in to say that golf isn't so exact, that's all. The physical aspect of it remains as important as the mental, and more so for some people...
I am right with you in everything you say, in any case.
TH
-
I see the issue as one of being "conflicted" rather than being "confused," but I agree with the premise. When I'm not sure which of my choices is the better (or best) one, it takes that much more concentration to execute my choice. I don't think I feel conflicted often enough on most courses.
You know, Rick, how far out of my way I'll go to avoid "conflict." (Smiley of some sort.)
But I take your point -- and defer to JHancock's observation that 4 hours of confounding might be a little much.
So: How about, instead of "confusion" (and "confounding choices"), "indecision." Four hours of indecision would suit me fine.
-
Is confusion the essence of great golf-course architecture?
I don't think, but maybe I'm confused or indecisive, that "confusion" is the right word. I believe it is as simple as "choices are the essense of great golf-course architecture".
The architect can only present the choices, it is the golfer's mind that will impart confusion and indecision into the pre-shot thought process that will determine if the execution of the thought is successful or not ...
-
Dan,
Agreed and that's why I love the 14th (Long) hole at the Old Course so much; it is the most strategic hole I've ever seen, and it's the one hole more than any other where I ask myself "What the heck should I try here?" on every shot.
Sometimes you don't know if you've made the right or wrong choice even after you hit the shot!
-
Dan Kelly,
Understandably, I disagree, confusion is not at the heart of great architecture.
The decision on the play of each shot is not a mystery which requires one to wade through a myriad of confusing choices.
Most golfers are stuck with a set method of play, a modis operendi when it comes to their golf game. Very few are capable of shaping every shot to provide the maximum advantage borne through execution.
Hence, much of the decision making is predetermined for them
and much of the decision making is irrelevant because they aren't capable of executing the required shot, in the ideal or personal form.
Simplisticly, the golfer has to get from POINT T to Point C on a varied field of play, mostly visible. Very few golfers that I know, from plus 5's to 36 handicappers are confused on the tee, especially on par 3's. And, the choices aren't that varied.
Holes like # 1 at NGLA, GCGC do provide choices, but not confusing choices, and certainly not an abundant number of choices, confusing or apparent.
The game of golf isn't that cerebral that it requires high IQ's to interpret the architecture and play it successfully.
Lastly, and according to your theory,
Does the confusion caused by a blind hole represent the epitome of great architecture ? ;D
-
Mike,
I think architects CAN present confusion (confoundment, etc) along with "choices". A green built into a hillside, then contoured to be deceptive as to it's break is an example of intentional confusion. An approach over a swale, made to appear uphill, but in reality is a level approach, might be another. Choices, to me, seem more clear cut, while deception, etc. is a little more trickery on the part of the architect...and both add to the game...in moderation!
Joe
-
Dan,
You need it all for great architecture. Choices, alternate routes, carry angles and the heroic shot. The 7th at Pebble has no options but is great; and while I initially rushed to jump on the bandwagon, it was the hole that made me say No.
-
Dan,
You need it all for great architecture. Choices, alternate routes, carry angles and the heroic shot. The 7th at Pebble has no options but is great; and while I initially rushed to jump on the bandwagon, it was the hole that made me say No.
Ian,
I'm not sure that Pebble 7 is great architecture. It's sure fun (to judge by my one round there), and one of my favorite holes to muse on -- but I'm not sure that makes it "great."
I'll happily accept your view that it is.
What I AM sure of is that Pebble 7 is not without options.
Does one hit a full, high shot -- risking that the wind will grab it and send it awry ... short, long, left or right?
Or does one hit a little knockdown -- staying under the wind, but requiring a defter touch than a full shot?
Does one aim, prudently, exactly at the dead-center of the green?
Or does one aim more or less directly at the pin -- increasing the risk of finding a hazard with any mis-hit?
I'd guess there's more than plenty of indecision in that tee box, day after day.
Patrick --
You'll note that I changed my word of choice from "confusion" to "indecision." That may not change your opinion one iota. Or it might. Who knows?
You write: "The game of golf isn't that cerebral that it requires high IQ's to interpret the architecture and play it successfully."
I'll accept that you know whereof you speak. (Smiley.) After all, you've played it more successfully than I have.
But I wonder: Isn't one goal of golf-course architecture to allow the physically less-gifted to use their mental prowess to minimize the penalties exacted by their physical less-giftedness in their contests with the physically more-gifted?
You write: "Very few golfers that I know, from plus 5's to 36 handicappers are [indecisive] on the tee, especially on par 3's."
They're not? They're not thinking about whether to take dead aim at the pin, or whether they wouldn't be better off aiming 10 feet to the center-side, or maybe 20 feet, or about what's going to face them if they miss their intended spot short, long, left or right, and about which of those misses would be preferable? They're not?
I do think about such things -- and I continue to hypothesize: The greater the course, the more often the course will demand such considerations.
But I could be wrong, of course.
-
Dan Kelly,
There seems to be a ridiculous notion that the less physically gifted golfer is more intelligent then the more physically gifted golfer. I don't know how or where this premise was presented or why it was accepted, but, I've seen it bandied about quite a bit on this site. I reject that notion, and everything attributed to it.
I think most golfers recognize risk/reward, or bad play/good play, some alternatives are more obvious than others, but, the play of a shot, may have more to do with ego and heroics then indecision created by multiple choice and the downside of a failed attempt.
The basics are rather straight forward, while the subtleties may be more difficult to detect, but experience can be the best teacher.
I would ask again, does the confusion/indecision caused by the blind hole represent the epitome of great architecture ? ;D
-
Dan Kelly:
You are a man after my heart. I love "confusion" on a golf course and wish we would see it more.
"Confusion" is a critical element in great architecture. The less sure the golfer is about what he should do, the better.
-
Dan Kelly & Tim Weiman,
WIND, not architects create confusion.
-
Pat Mucci:
I agree that wind plays a key role in creating confusion. But, I'm not prepared to give the architect no credit for how he exploits it..
-
Dan Kelly,
There seems to be a ridiculous notion that the less physically gifted golfer is more intelligent then the more physically gifted golfer. I don't know how or where this premise was presented or why it was accepted, but, I've seen it bandied about quite a bit on this site. I reject that notion, and everything attributed to it.
Of course, I have never advocated that "ridiculous notion." Nor shall I ever. I wonder who has, here on this site. Care to name names, Patrick?
I'll remind you that I merely asked: "Isn't one goal of golf-course architecture to allow the physically less-gifted to use their mental prowess to minimize the penalties exacted by their physical less-giftedness in their contests with the physically more-gifted?"
Quite obviously, Patrick, there is no inverse relationship between physical giftedness and mental prowess. Witness: Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods.
When the physical prowess and the mental prowess come in the same package, there's nothing a golf-course architect can do to get in its way. Nor should there be anything.
-
Great thread, Dan, and not only because I agree completely with your premise! My only problem with the premise is that in trying to apply it to many of the most renowned holes on courses which are commonly held to be "great" that I have played, many of those holes and those courses just do not come up to scratch. Perhaps this is why Pat Mucci seems determined to be contrarian on this issue?
Anybody who plays Dornoch and is not continuously "confounded" during their round as to how to play their shots (particularly to 3 of the 4 short holes) is in dreamland or a significantly better player than anybody else who has ever played there. The hole there that is often cited as the "worst" on the course (16) is in fact a textbook example of the "thinking man's split fairway" hole that you refer to in your initial post. Compare and contrast Dornoch and nearby Brora, and you will see the difference between the great and the merely good in golf course design, and it all has a lot to do with choices and the inevitability of being confounded on a great course (or on a great hole, or even just on a great shot) no matter how good or even great you are.
-
Unlike this thread, golf couse architecture is not about confusion.
It is about uncertainty and temptation.
After playing 16 at RD a couple of times, I have a pretty good grasp of the playing choices. I am not confused about my options. There are, afterall, a finite number of them.
But I may well be uncertain as to the option I should take. That uncertainty comes from any number of sources - from weather, where I am in my match, what I had for lunch, or the noise from last pass of a Tornado in the Fife of Dornoch.
On good holes uncertainty also comes from the temptation to hit shots that carry lots of risk. Shots that may be beyond your grasp. On those holes you are never quite sure that you are making the right choice. Your choices are invariably unsettling and that is what makes a hole interesting.
Like at 16 on RD.
Bob
-
Confounding choices are an important ingredient in great golf course architecture. But in my opinion there is a difference between what makes a golf hole great architecture and what makes a golf course an example of great architecture.
I don’t personally believe eighteen confounding golf holes makes for a great golf course. In my mind great golf course architecture is a balance between confounding choices, less than confounding choices and little or no choice (like the 7th at Pebble Beach). Between difficult and not so difficult. Throw in exceptional natural features – like wild ground movement or a twisting stream or broken ground plus interesting man-made hazards & greens and a little quirk or surprise and IMO you have great golf course architecture.
It is the balance, the combination of great holes, good holes, breathers, and goofy holes that makes for interesting golf. The idea that some prominent modern architects have that the golfer is looking for 18 finishing holes or 18 signature hole or even 18 confounding golf holes misses the point of why certain courses are so interesting.
Darwin was a fan of Hunter’s book ‘The Links’ – but in the book Hunter argued that the 10th at St.Andrews (I believe it was 10th or maybe the 9th) was great golf hole. Darwin said he couldn’t possibly believe that, it was a non-descript breather. But Darwin said it would be a crime to touch the hole, it came at a natural point in the round (between some very challenging/confounding holes coming in and then going out) and its place in the greater scheme of the golf course was perfect. His thoughts are similar to Simpson’s who believed that the ideal golf course must possess at least one bad or odd golf hole.
-
Nice post, Rich.
I'm inclined to think Ian & Tom MacWood hit it right with variety.
I think most golfers like the exact opposite - clear cut options & maybe even no choice at all. That & immaculate green grass.
P.S. Dan, I'm hurt you couldn't remember me.
-
Bob C
"Uncertainty and temptation" is just a euphemism (in a golfing sense) for "confusion" which is in itself just a mild noun version of the verb "to confound."
So, you agree with me. Thanks!
-
Great thread!
But gentleman, young Mr. Shackelford absolutely nails this in "hole" 6 of his new book "Grounds for Golf" - it is titled "Temptation". Perhaps it is just another word for confusion, multiple choices that are difficult to discern, whatever. One way or the other, I urge you to go read that - it so perfectly discusses the exact premise of this thread it is scary, in a way.
TH
-
Rich -
Maybe I do agree with you, but "confusion" is not the right word. It's the difference between not knowing what your choices are and not being sure which is the best choice.
On the tee at 16 at RD you may be uncertain, ambivalent, unsettled, conflicted, undecided, unresolved, disturbed, outside your comfort zone, hungry, horny, wet or tired....but you aren't confused.
Bob
-
Bob: interesting example, and funny how often that golf hole does come up as such in these types of discussions.
I fully agree with you: temptation exists on that tee, but confusion surely doesn't. The choices are really pretty clear.
Now here's the question: does this somehow lessen the greatness of the hole? I would submit not. It is such a paragon of "temptation", that its "confounding choice" lies exactly in that! That is, the issue isn't discerning the choices, the issue is deciding which choice to take, and on that tee, it can be gut-wrenching (at least in a competitive situation).
-
Bob
Myabe you just haven't played that hole enough!
Every time I stand on that tee (when it is important--i.e. a match is on or I am in a competition with a decent score), I get "confused." Do I have the balls and the game to hit the driver over the hill and risk the gorse on the right and the quarry on the left? Should I hit a 3 iron down the left "fiarway?" Maybe a 3-wood cut shot trying to get the best of both worlds and jsut hope I don't cut it too much into the deathly right fairway bunker? What I finally decide to doI do at the very last moment. As for the execution of the decision.......
-
Rich:
Ah yes, but your confusion lies not in trying to figure out the choices, those are crystal clear... your confusion lies in the temptation... which one to take....
In any case I guess you've proved your point that in the end it can be two words for the same thing! One man's temptation is another's confusion.
Damn Geoff sets this out well in his book... it sadly seems I'm the only one here who's read it. ;)
TH
-
I believe it is as simple as "choices are the essense of great golf-course architecture".
The architect can only present the choices, it is the golfer's mind that will impart confusion and indecision into the pre-shot thought process that will determine if the execution of the thought is successful or not ...
On the tee at 16 at RD you may be uncertain, ambivalent, unsettled, conflicted, undecided, unresolved, disturbed, outside your comfort zone, hungry, horny, wet or tired....but you aren't confused.
The choices presented by the architect (or mother nature) are the root of a challenging hole ... as Bob states above, everything else is a result of the choices available, known and unknown ...
-
On the tee at 16 at RD you may be uncertain, ambivalent, unsettled, conflicted, undecided, unresolved, disturbed, outside your comfort zone, hungry, horny, wet or tired....but you aren't confused.
Bob --
I tried to banish the word "confusion" about 20 posts ago, in favor of "indecision." Oh, well, no matter;the idea -- that great architecture produces troubling choices -- hasn't changed.
I like "unsettled" best among your list of alternatives -- which sounds a little like the name of a Law Firm. Can't you hear the receptionist: "... Hungry, Horny, Wet & Tired -- how may I direct your call?"
Tom MacWood --
Points well taken about the difference between great hole architecture and great course architecture. I like this very much: "It is the balance, the combination of great holes, good holes, breathers, and goofy holes that makes for interesting golf. The idea that some prominent modern architects have that the golfer is looking for 18 finishing holes or 18 signature hole or even 18 confounding golf holes misses the point of why certain courses are so interesting."
-
My impression of Pete Dye courses is that the golfer is presented on many tees a choice between a very large landing area but with a very long second shot, or a very short second shot from a much smaller landing area that must be reached with an excellent drive. The element of confusion and doubt that these choices present is part of the beauty of his courses, with the Ocean Course at Kiawah being a wonderful example.
Mike Strantz does it differently, by hiding landing areas to make them appear to be small and difficult to hit, but at the same time showing the golfer the line to the landing area. The landing areas almost always turn out to be quite ample. It makes his courses tremendously fun to play, and not at all impossible, even for average or worse golfers.
Maybe rather than "execution", which can be a problem even on a 6-inch putt, the issue is "committing" to these sorts of shots, putting doubts out of one's mind and then taking what the course gives, based on the choice you made.
-
Dan, I think Mr Huckaby has found the closest one word answer to your great, Is "confusion" the essence of great golf course architecture, question.
Temptation is as close as I've heard. We all have bigger hearts than brains, and temptation is a very favoured technique by many of the better architects. God knows I always fall victim to an inviting risk/reward opportunity.
I still like your premise, it got me searching for a simpler answer to a complex question.
(beware I'm heading off topic.....sorry)
Tom, As always great answer. The example of the 10th is facinating because I rarely evaluate a golf course by the flow (as in music or movies). In movies and books, there must be breaks to make the suspenceful moments even more suspenseful. I had previously mentioned in another thread I found Cypress to flows like a great book, but the break in the middle at St. Andrew's almost feels like the intermission of a play. The build to a climax is something most architects try to employ, but the idea of a break in the middle is really facinating idea to follow up on. Would this be the flow of merion? Opens tough and long, the so called short stretch through the middle, and finally the tough finishing five.
-
Ian - I like "temptation" also for the best word to describe this. Just to be clear though, I took it from the chapter in Geoff Shackelford's book! Original thought and I are not companions very often. ;)
TH
-
Ian, Tom --
But it's not just "temptation" I'm talking about here. At least I don't think it is. (Haven't read the Shackelford chapter in question, so maybe I'm not thinking of the word the same way you and he are.)
When I think of "temptation," it has a kind of BINARY quality in my mind: Take the temptation, or resist it. Yes, or no. Black, or white.
What I'm theorizing is not a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing at all. It's a continuous-spectrum thing.
I'm theorizing that great architecture, from tee through green, plays with the mind by making the overly cautious play pay a price almost equal to (or equal to, or possibly even greater than!) the overly risky play ... leading to a mindset of almost constant indecision ... or, as Bob Crosby suggested, "unsettledness."
-
Dan: we're not far off. "Temptation" as described by Geoff in his book does take on the qualities you suggest, more or less, stretching the normal definition of the word without a doubt.
Unsettledness works also...
Lump all this together and I believe it goes with the very inarticulate way I've describe what I generally like in a golf course: being required to think one's way around. The more thought, the better. The less thought, the worse.
TH
-
Although it's difficult (maybe impossible) to name the greatest single golf hole in the world, I would put #13 at Augusta National as the best example of indecision and temptation--maybe even confusion--and would, therefore, suggest it may be the best hole anywhere.
Everytime you play the hole is different. There is a decision on the drive--cut the corner tight to the tall pines, hook it sharply to match the right-to-left contour of the fairway, etc. And the second shot is the best in golf. The angle into the green is such that the creek needs to be crossed, but it also runs parallel to your shot. The decision on the second shot involves temptation/confusion--and the need for precision. And the green complex adds confusion. Miss the green and you can't pitch easily over the bank of the green--do you hit it into the bank--or put up it?
All in all, a wonderful hole--and I think an example of what this thread is suggesting.
-
Jim H
That hole is the best example of temptation I know. You have three shots to get on the green according to par. Yet as a player you want to cut the corner from the tee, and have a go at reaching the green in two. There is no confusuion, just choices that the architect has baited you into making. ie he is baiting you with.....temptation.
Confounding or confusion is the centre fairway bunker on the second hole at Carnoustie. Over it (I wish), left, right, short (probably best but a long approach); all choices without the right one being obvious.....confusion
I'll stick with Dan's thesis is right, but there is no one word answer to fit the last line.
-
PM
I generally agree with you on this subject. I don't think "confusion" is what players want throughout a round. Occasionally, possibility, but I am more concerned with presenting the design elements of a hole to a player and letting him, based on his ability in the existing conditions, determine his playing approach to the hole. Confusion just leads to conservative play imho. I know if I am playing competively and I am not sure what lurks behind some mound or something, my tendency is to always play away from that area of "confusion"
I believe that a player wants to know what he is before him and if he plays a good, correct shot for the conditions, he expects to be rewarded. I don't believe any player enjoys hitting what he thinks is a good shot, but because of not really knowing where the trouble lurks because he is "confused", the shot finds some place that he can't play his next shot from. That, in fact, is the essence of poor design imho.
I believe in some mystery in a course, but to label "confusion as the essence of golf course architecture" is going a little too far imho.
BTW, I must have missed the design options on NGLA Hole #1.
Nicklaus hit driver, so I hit driver (without warming up, since they have no range BTW) 10 feet from the hole. Where's the confusion and mystery? I would have driven the 2nd green too, if I would have had any idea where it was. I wound up in the right greenside bunker. Anyway, I did enjoy the course, but it isn't very difficult. Maybe that is why I enjoyed it! LOL
-
Many of the really great holes I've seen in my life have probably confounded me when I first saw them. Any golf hole that really does have some multiple choices or options that are used frequently has to have something very good going for it architecturally, in my opinion. I don't know how many times I've come back to mention the 10th at Riviera when questions such as this come up--but there's that flat landform with all that great architecture going on. The 1998 LA Open was proof to me of the interest of the hole. Don't know whether I'd call it confusing or confounding exactly but making a choice of what to do must be tough sometimes. When I saw the final group in the final round all in contention play that hole of the tee as differently as they did it just confirmed what terrific options and strategies the hole had. When three tour players play a hole that different from one another that shows me an awful lot.
-
Dan, I hate to agree with Rich, but this is a terrific topic. If I were you I'd stick with the first phrase as my thesis: The essence of great architecture is a series of confounding choices. "Confounding choices" pretty much covers it in my mind. I prefer "confounding" because it carries more of a notion of the potential to be fooled.
Websters' second definition of 'confounding' is "To mistake for another; to identify falsely.' If a choice is close enough, a 'spectrum' as you describe it, many times a golfer might be slightly or drastically on the wrong end of that spectrum, but be convinced he has made he correct decision.
Another way to describe it might be "confused confidence." This would describe a golfer who thinks he has it all figured out, but really has no clue.
For example, lets just suppose that there is more to Holes 1 & 2 at NGLA than "JWL" above realizes-- I wouldn't know because I have not played the course, but just suppose this is true. Also suppose that JWL has played the course only once, as seems to be the case by his post. Now JWL is confident that the course is easy and Nos. 1 and 2 are pushovers. This is based on his success on No. 1, as well as Jack Nicklaus' success. He has explained away his mistake on No. 2 (hitting into the bunker) as merely misalignment. So based on his experience he knows all he needs to know to to consistently conquer these holes. Now supposing my supposition is true, then JWL is 'confidently confused' about the hole. He is sure he is correct but he is incorrect. Upon repeat plays, this would lead to quite a lot of frustration, followed perhaps by eventual enlightenment. In my hypothetical, the architecture confounded JWL into thinking them pushovers, when really they were not.
This strategic technique is particularly suited for confounding the modern golfer, whose mind has been numbed by playing courses where the choices stand out like RuPaul at a Christian Coalition convention.
Tom H., I think that this is where temptation fits in-- by making the golfer an offer he can't refuse. Tempting shots present an option or series of options that so entice the golfer, that he can no longer rationally weigh the other options. In the extreme, he may not even realize he has another choice. Think of the discussion regarding CPC 16, at which the temptation is so strong that many werent even able to consider the safe play.
[By the way Tom, the holes at Rustic have names and No. 12 is named "Temptation."]
This notion also takes care of Patrick's golfer, who always thinks he knows where he is going and how to get there. Patrick may be correct that the vast majority of golfers never feel "confused" on the tee. But just because they think they know something doesnt mean they have anything figured out. Confused confidence. Like a husband driving with his wife to a unfamiliar locale-- he thinks he knows where he is going. And just because he eventually gets there doesnt mean he went the best way.
Patrick, if you disagree with me on this, why don't you and your friend TEPaul come out to Los Angeles next spring. After a morning round at Rustic Canyon we can go to the Nissan Open and view one of TEPaul's favorite holes. We'll stand behind No. 10 for a few hours and then you can tell me whether you still believe that golfers don't face confounding choices off the tee.
And Patrick, to answer your question, in my opinion a blind hole doesnt represent the epitome of great architecture for the following reasons, and probably others:
1. A blind shot has other archtectural pitfalls, such as creating a dangerous condition.
2. A blind shot loses some of its intrigue after one plays it once or twice and figures out the proper line.
That being said, because most golfers are target oriented, blind shots can add to the golfers confusion, discomfort and indecision over the ball. I prefer 'Elvis Presley blind shots,' where the golfer can see from about the waste up. That way the golfer sees players, but still cannot see all the ground for which he is aiming.
-
Dave
Welcome to the dark side. May the force be with you.....
I don't think that "temptation" is the same thing and "confounding." In fact, it is a bit the opposite. To me "confounding" is based on the fear of failure, where "temptation" is based on the hope of success. I guess when I play a friendly match, I'll succumb to temptation (i.e. charge the 35 foot putt, go for the long carry), but the overriding emotion I have in playing in a competition is fear, and I more often than not feel confounded over how to play shots or even which shot or which club to play much more than I am tempted to try to hit the ball to position A.
There are some golf holes and golf shots, at both great and not so great courses, where I do not have a clue as to what my strategy will be until the last few seconds before pulling the trigger. On one of my current home courses, if I have a score going, or the match is still on, I will walk back to the tee of the 18th (320 yards, through a claustrophobic chute, driveable in the right conditions, downhill with OB left) with as many a 4 clubs in my hand......
Maybe I'm just neurotic.
-
This really is a most interesting thread and most interesting thoughts and answers. I'm particularly interested in post #30 of AG Crockett and post #37 of JWL. TomH's mention of GeoffShac's elaboration of temptation in architecture is also most interesting. As long as I've know GeoffShac he's highlighted the importance of temptation in golf architecture almost putting the sentiment as the bottom line best motivation that architecture can produce. And I've been wholly in agreement with GeoffShac on that for years.
Is temptation and confusion in architecture in anyway similar? To me they probably get close to being almost opposite. But on reflection of holes I know I think both of them are necessary to make for really interesting architecture. I'd think though that temptation would be and should be far more at a premium in architecture than real confusion. There's no doubt to me also that the presentation of real temptation in architecture will always be far more popular in architecture than confusion will be.
Is it within the realm of architecture and an architect to dedicatedly tempt and confuse a golfer? Certainly it is to tempt golfers. To confuse them may be too but certainly to deceive them is! I think it's certainly in the realm of an architect to dedicatedly test any golfer's ability to make intelligent choices on a golf course whether it's temptation, deception or confusion. To test a golfer's intelligence degrees of deception in architecture certainly seem necessary.
To offer interesting examples of temptation, confusion, deception---some extremely tempting and the others deceptive to confusing (to the player playing the course for the first time) I'd offer six holes as examples--all fairly short par 4s.
1. Riviera's #10
2. Inniscrone's #3
3. Inniscrone's #16
4. Applebrook's #3
5. Pacific Dunes's #6
6. Rustic Canyon's #12
Riviera's #10 doesn't need any introduction as it proven itself to be one of the most popular an interesting driveable par 4s in the world. It's popularity is it's all right before your eyes, and although it's driveable option is very exacting there's no confusion in it. But probably the strongest asset to me is this hole's three basic options may all be used equally--and that to me means a strategic balance that's just fascinating. Options that aren't used much although they make look somewhat interesting aren't very good options to me simply because they're not very functional.
Inniscrone's #3 is an immensely popular hole with all who've seen it. It's driveable and temptingly so--it's other more conservative options are on a rather large spectrum that flow together sort of seamlessly. The low margin for error driveable option can really take a toll but doesn't seem to shut down the use of this risky option much at all--and that's very intereting and architecturally impressive. And the scoring spectrum on this hole must be every bit as wide as Riviera's #10, if not more so. Similar to some of the other great short par 4s in the world the green is set in a way that the golfer has a wide variety of choices of shallow and wide vs long and narrow. I think to give Hanse & Co the credit they deserve this hole has to be considered one of the best architectural holes in the world in the sheer richness and multiplicity of its options and strategies and the risk and reward ramifications of all those strategies.
Inniscrone's #16 is not driveable but is extemely confusing and deceptive for golfers who first see it. As such it's extremely controversial. Some think the hole is unique and brilliant and some think it's an abomination. For a first timer it's hard to see what to do or what might happen, although the approach seems very dangerous and it is.
Applebrook's #3 is somewhat similar to Inniscrone's #3 except most of the choices are blind to the golfer where Inniscrone's is completely visible. As such this hole is more confusing to the golfer and not as popular but I think it's getting there for those who've come to know it. And I think the spectrum of choices are used really well and balanced--a real asset in architecture.
Pacific Dunes's #6. This hole is one of my favorites. It's so interesting to look at. The choices are a very low risk drive left to a shallow and somewhat wide approach or a higher risk long and narrow approach from the right. This one is a real golfer's choice and the risks and rewards of going right or left off the tee are probably somewhat confusing as to decision making-a real architectural asset in my mind.
Rustic Canyon's #12. Never played this one but I'm very familiar with it's concept. It's supposed to be both tempting, deceptive and confusing simply because it removed all evidence of risk on the tee shot other than attempting to drive the green. I still don't know how well it works in play but if it works as well as the concept of it it should be possibly the most tempting, deceptive and confusing of all. It's supposed to make first time players smell a rat on the tee although it's not supposed be clear what or where that rat is (confusing and confounding).
But it seems with all these examples that at least the ones that are most popular are the ones where everything is visible, both the risks and rewards as large a spectrum as they may be despite the fact that the high risk one may be very low on margin for error. Another thing that may make Riviera's #10 and Inniscrone's #3 so popular and so tempting with their high risk visible option, and perhaps even eventually Applebrook's #3, which is blind, is the tees are higher than the green and we all know in architecture that makes the golfer feel more powerful and consequently should tempt him more to choose the high risk option.
But the examples given where options really are confusing and the player chooses an option and then hits the very best shot he thinks he needs to and still gets penalized will always be a perscription for frustration and criticism.
I don't think ultimately confusion is as valuable an asset in architecture as is visible temptation but I think it can be used occasionally as just part of the necessary "off-beat" in architecture. So to me holes like Riviera's #10 and Inniscrone's #3 are not confusing but the spectrum of their options and strategies are so well balanced that they can create indecision on the tee box which is not the same thing as confusion to me.
But I'm still hoping that somehow Rustic Canyon's #12 can create temptation, confusion and indecision on the tee box although I'm still not sure if all that's possible in architecture. But I admire the architects for trying the concept anyway.
As an addendum I would caution golfers such as Dave Wigler and JWL not to take holes like Rustic's #12 and NGLA's #1 and #2 lightly simply because the one time they played them they succeeded with their high risk options. There's no question that the time will come when those holes will take their toll on them.
-
TEPaul,
I'm late and have to run, but, I'd say that confusion is borne of a low golfing IQ, or an inability to recognize risk/reward and decide, based on the golfers capabilities, what plan of attack to execute.
You fellows are making golf out to be a game of chess where the player can't see the pieces.
It's not that complicated.
Tom, if you or anyone stand on the tee at # 6 at Pacific Dunes and are confused, bowling should be your next sport. ;D
-
I am as pleased to see this thread revived as I am sorry ever to have let the word "confusion" (as opposed to "indecision," "unsettledness," "ambivalence," or the word of your choice) out of my fingertips.
"Confusion" appears to have ... confused the issue.
At this point, we seem to have some consensus here (Mr. Mucci excepted) that many of the great holes are great holes at least in part because they produce unsettledness (or whatever) at the teeing ground.
Is a similar unsettledness a hallmark of many of the great green complexes, too?
-
Dan,
I'm not sure that I'm ready to bail out completely on the concept of confusion. It doesn't have to be an element of risk/reward. It can be about depth perception. It can be about my previous examples of slope deception or elevation deception....which ends up being confusion.
Question: would those truly of a low golf IQ be better identified if courses weren't marked to the hilt with yardage markers, or would we all end up in that category when our precious info plates/stakes/GPS units were taken away from us....giving the architect a fair fight in the process?
Joe
-
DaveI don't think that "temptation" is the same thing and "confounding." In fact, it is a bit the opposite. To me "confounding" is based on the fear of failure, where "temptation" is based on the hope of success. I guess when I play a friendly match, I'll succumb to temptation (i.e. charge the 35 foot putt, go for the long carry), but the overriding emotion I have in playing in a competition is fear, and I more often than not feel confounded over how to play shots or even which shot or which club to play much more than I am tempted to try to hit the ball to position A.
You may be right, 'tempting' and 'confounding' may not be the same thing. I tried mush them be adding 'confident' to confusion.
I think your observation regarding abandon in friendly games and fear in competitions is also accurate. I was watching some tournament play today and was very surprised how conservative many of the golfers played, and how they seemed to agonize trying to get a handle over every aspect of their pending shot. I watched one guy take a minute and one-half before hitting a 170 yard iron shot to a middle pin from the middle of a fairway. (He was put on the clock by an official who was also watching.)
That being said, I think your example also demostrates the connection between temptation and confoundment (if the latter is a word.) The same exact features often bring about confoundment in one situation and overwhelming temptation in another. Think of the same old example, CPC 16. No confusion for all (present company excepted) in a friendly game, no matter what the conditions. Put a tournament on the line, and the choice might get a little harder to make.
-
The same exact features often bring about confoundment in one situation and overwhelming temptation in another. Think of the same old example, CPC 16. No confusion for all (present company excepted) in a friendly game, no matter what the conditions. Put a tournament on the line, and the choice might get a little harder to make.
Very interesting example, Professor Moriarty! Exactly the sort of thing I had in mind (I think).
I'll take it the logical (I think) next step:
-- In friendly play, CPC 16 (no matter how beautiful or exciting it may be) is not great golf architecture -- because the riddles it poses are out of play. Everyone who doesn't have a cover on his putter goes for it.
-- In competitive play, CPC 16 is great golf architecture -- because it provokes thoughtful unsettledness, including furtive glances to the left.
If that subthesis is right, it suggests another:
The greatness (or lack thereof) of a golf hole must be judged not by how it looks, and not by how it plays in everyday play, but by how it plays in competition.
What say ye?
-
Well Dan, Mr. Moriarty himself proves that CPC #16 presents choices in every day play - as he admits with his "present company excluded" phrase! You must have missed that in the long-winded crap Shivas and I were giving the good-sport David about his "exhilirating" layup a few months ago....
You're right though - ALMOST everyone just goes for that hole no matter what in a friendly game, just for the shot at immortality and being able to look one's self in the mirror the next day.
And yes, in a competitive situation, the choices become quite different, the temptation is different, everything is different - for obvious reasons.
The bottom line is that there aren't many golf holes, let alone courses, where this dichotomy exists though. Where it does matter, how the course/hole plays in competition should be a part of the equation. I'd generally favor the "every-day play" aspect over the competitive as a rule, only because that constitutes such a vastly larger percentage of play for any golf course.
TH
-
Patrick:
At least one architect (Brian Silva) commented to me that he'd rather play the tee shot LEFT on #6 at Pacific Dunes, so he can take the left-hand bunkers out of play by distance, instead of risking pulling his second shot off the edge which he is apparently prone to doing.
Others try to fade their tee shot around the bunker instead of carrying it, because they're not sure they can make the carry.
Likewise, on the second shot, some prefer to bounce the ball home instead of hitting a wedge in the air, partly because of wind but partly because of their own comfort zones.
I agree 110% with Dan's original premise. I hate black-and-white choices on a course. Somewhere in the Anatomy of a Golf Course I said the best holes present 1000 shades of gray, and I'll stick with that. On a hole with a great strategic fairway bunker, for example, black is in the bunker, white is very close to it, and it gets grayer the further you play safely away from it.
-
Tom Doak:
Post #48 is a classic in strategic analysis and it's obviously better when it comes from the text of the architect. The shades of gray remarks are terrific as well as the actual nuances and ramifications of the differing strategies on that short but brilliant hole. I wouldn't say #6 is the very best hole on PD since there are many of them with varying demands and requirements but #6 is my personal favorite for a number of reasons, the primary one being it seems to catch so many architectural elements across the spectrum--both psychological and actual.
-
Tom Doak,
I think the beauty of the 6th hole is that all of the information the golfer needs in order to determine how to play the hole, is available from the tee. Success depends upon how thoroughly the golfer examines what you've layed out in front of them, and, how realistically they evaluate their game and their ability to hit a variety of shots.
Before hitting the drive you can recognize the approach shots available to you, based on the end position of your drive.
It seemed that most golfers fail to factor in the location of the pin when deciding how to play their drive.
A back pin, especially a back left pin makes any approach from the left very difficult, even if the golfer is the master of the low, run-up, duck hook, a shot that TEPaul has perfected.
Unfortunately, he perfected that shot involuntarily, and can only hit it, when he feels pressured to perform. He remains unable to hit it at will. You will notice, when playing with him, that the caddies always go down the right side of the fairway,
except for one caddy at Gulph Mills, James Jones, affectionately refered to as Bean Head Jones, or Helmet head Jones. It should also be noted that TEPaul's liability premiums also doubled this past year, in no small part due to Bean Head Jones's refusal to walk down the right side of the fairway.
The CaddyMaster now requires all caddies to sign releases when they are selected to tote TE's bag.
I thought that # 6 wasn't overpowering, but required a strategic examination of the features, coupled with ones realistic assessment of their ability to hit a variety of shots.
The wind, and a players ability to execute successfully in the wind, is also a material factor. I liked the hole a great deal.
-
Shivas,
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't let that snake charmer, Dan Kelly, lead you down the path to damnation.
Being the ever so thoughtful and resourceful contrarian, he is trying to use the logic of one golf hole and apply it across the board.
Take Dan's example of #16 at CPC. I would argue that the feelings of temptation, confusion, whatever you want to call it are there for the tournament and non-tournament golfer. It's just that during a tournament you have a lot more on the line.
Even if almost every casual golfer goes for it only to come up short, they still feel the emotions. That's great architecture whether it's tournament or non-tournament golf.
TTK
-
Guys, this is a very interesting thesis that our friend Mr. Kelly has thrown out to us: could it be that great architecture comes out in tournament play, play that matters, non-friendly play? It seems to me that this idea runs contrary to a position that many here take, ie, that what matters in architecture is everyday play, not toonamint play.
If we take Dan's suggested thesis as true, I am concerned that the logical outgrowth is that the penal style has more merit than many here would want to believe. Perhaps all this glowing talk of strategy and choices and options and all the other backhanded slaps at penal architecture apply only to friendly games.
But if great architecture comes through when screwing up costs you dearly, perhaps golf is really all about "whatever you do, don't hit it there!", ie, the penal school.
Sorry to drop this great thread. I've been beating my head against a wall, and lost touch.
Shivas. I don't get your jump all the way to the "penal school" from the premise that many better golfers play more aggessively in "friendly matches" than in tournamentscall it the "16 theory."
I would think that architects could exploit this tendency of better golfers by building holes with options that would allow the thinking golfer to hang with the aggressive golfer in everyday play. No one likes to lose, even in every day play.
Could you please explain it a little bit.
-
Yes, Shivas, could you explain that -- because I don't think your "logical outgrowth" is what I'm saying at all!
I don't believe that I'm advocating penal architecture. I don't intend to be advocating penal architecture -- certainly not exclusively penal architecture, to the exclusion of "strategic" architecture.
I believe that I'm advocating this position: The greatness of golf architecture most clearly reveals itself in tournament play, when all of the options come into play, when -- from the tee through the green -- the price of overaggressiveness and overcaution must be given equal consideration.
-
Gentlemen,
The way we (you) were? Forgive me for "bumping" this thread.
I was meandering through the forum so to speak and came across, in my opinion, a "hidden gem". The premise is very interesting and the debate enlightening. I thought that relative newbies to the site might find this thread instructive. I certainly did. Nothing gets resolved but the content is very thought provoking.
Have the modern, latter day architects used ".... confusion (as) the essence of great golf-course architecture?" Have The Minimalists acceded to Dan Kelly's premise over the last decade?
Thanks to Dan Kelly for this and he tended towards thinking "unsettledness" was a neater description than confused. All good stuff.
Cheers Colin
-
I think the problem with championship level golf today is that the players are too long and in many cases too straight for choice to be an option. Only when you get to a fast and firm - and windy - links course does choice play that much of a role. That's why the Open Championship is so much fun every year, and courses like Atlanta Athletic Club are pretty boring.