News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Texture vs. playability New
« on: March 23, 2015, 08:05:05 PM »
Looking at those stunning pictures of Bandon posted by Joe it appears that Bandon has texture in spades provided by the ocean, native grasses,darker bunkers,undulating fairways and greens, and gorse.

From all reports the courses at Bandon are also extremely playable.

An example of another favorite,highly playable (though less so now) course of mine that has lost its texture is ANGC with the fake circular pine beds around trees, blinding white sand, and same bright green color as fairways "2nd cut" (somehow wall to wall fairways had more texture leading into the wooded pine straw)

How does an architect balance the demands of both masters?
My guesses?
1.width-seems to be most important-yet within this width hazards can/should be contained
2.making use of whatever native vegetation is available especially near tees and other places where more likely to be out of play, or clean enough to find if in play
3.bunkers
4.mature specimen trees that may or may not create strategic choices
5. grassing lines
6 micro-undulations in fairways
7. Native ground covers that are playable(pine straw, low lying heather, sand in California now? what else?)
additions from the board
8. Pinehurst's wire/sand/unirrigated edges-curious about the long temr maintenance of this
9.Elevation change-per Peter

running out of guesses ;) ;D
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 12:20:10 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Peter Pallotta

Re: Texture vs. playability
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2015, 08:35:00 PM »
Good topic, Jeff.

I'd maybe add elevation changes to your list, as a contextualizing 'macro texture', i.e. both the thick base of paint on which the highlight colours are then added; and the modifier of all other textures/elements, as the high and low points become like sunshine and shadows

Peter




Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Texture vs. playability
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2015, 05:07:45 AM »
Jeff

I am not sure what you are driving at, but I think texture does sacrifice some playability...which is another reason for width that I hadn't really considered before.  I just played Little Aston I notice they are experimenting with heather top bunkers to add texture.  In fact, lots of places are adding heather for texture.  A big part of heather growth can be provided by better tree management.  Thinning out crap trees and showcasing lovely trees is a great way to provide non-golf focal points which is the entire purpose of texture...plus the horrible green wall of trees (an absolute texture killer) effect can be done away with.  It will also provide more sunlight to better grow appropriate ground cover "roughs", heather or whatever.     

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Texture vs. playability
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2015, 08:24:25 AM »
An example of an architects preference for designed in texture would be Stephen Kay's Links of North Dakota. He likes the texture that longer grass around greens and bunkers yields. In this case it ruined the playability of delicate shots around said bunkers and greens. Ruined meaning it took away the players ability to use their imagination, by using even the smallest undulation on the ground to get a desired deflection.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Texture vs. playability New
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2015, 08:29:48 AM »
Jeff

I am not sure what you are driving at, but I think texture does sacrifice some playability...which is another reason for width that I hadn't really considered before.  I just played Little Aston I notice they are experimenting with heather top bunkers to add texture.  In fact, lots of places are adding heather for texture.  A big part of heather growth can be provided by better tree management.  Thinning out crap trees and showcasing lovely trees is a great way to provide non-golf focal points which is the entire purpose of texture...plus the horrible green wall of trees (an absolute texture killer) effect can be done away with.  It will also provide more sunlight to better grow appropriate ground cover "roughs", heather or whatever.      

Ciao

That's exactly what I'm driving at.
as are all the responses.
Fields of waving uniform fescue flanking fairways for picture opps?-not so much
particularly interested in playable sources of texture vis groundcovers, undulations,livestock maintaind areas etc. Unirrigated sand areas al la Pinehurst
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 12:20:48 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Jackson C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Texture vs. playability
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2015, 09:38:52 AM »
A good example of texture and playability is the fescue area separating the 14th and 15th fairways at Kingsley Club.
Balls hit into this area are relatively easy to find and usually very playable because the land is flat and the grass is short and thinned out.
It is one of the prettiest places on the golf course in large part because of how the fescue area contrasts with the fairways and ties into the bunkering on 14.
"The secrets that golf reveals to the game's best are secrets those players must discover for themselves."
Christy O'Connor, Sr. (1998)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back