Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ally Mcintosh on September 19, 2013, 10:38:28 AM
-
Are we more "wowed" by the eye-candy of golf courses these days than at any time in our golfing history?... Do we get carried away by huge imposing bunkers, horizon greens and "features" at the expense of straight forward subtleties and shot values in less inspired surroundings?
Combining both is great of course. But I think most golfers today take a joy more in the former than the latter. And I'm not sure it was always like that.
Perhaps I'm just thinking out loud, primarily because yesterday I enjoyed a highly pleasurable round at my home course - subtle and seemingly overlooked a little more every year.
Ally
-
Generally speaking it doesn't wow me now and it didn't in the past. The thing that can "wow" me, perhaps to an irrational extent, is contour. Looking at pictures of a course if I can identify from a photograph what looks like small-scale undulation I have a "wow" reaction. And I am particularly impressed with bold yet flowing large-scale features.
Bunkering I am not impressed with. Not mowing patterns or color/texture contrast in grassing. Undulation and contouring are my eye candy, I suppose. Subtlety is great but boldness is also inspiring!
The Garden Changes
When I was young, I grew
dull plants returning food
for work. But I, now older,
repent my practicality.
I’ve renounced beans, and turned
to crocus, gladiola,
and coreopsis. I’ve moved
past zinnia, marigold,
to bougainvillea.
I’ve even learned to love
poor salvia, which blooms
on August days, when few flowers
will venture anything
but green. The summer’s short
and ornament is what
I want—all vividness.
Not pasty cauliflower
and not potatoes, whose
gnarled flesh is more and more
like mine. Give me bright blossoms
against the teeming green.
Give me orange flags, blue horns,
white faces, yellow wings.
Give me the purple throat,
breathless, of calla lilies—
and red, red, red, red, red.
--Andrew Hudgins (from "The Never-Ending")
-
Ally,
You need to define "we." I think that vast majority of golfers are wowed by eye candy. The participants on this site are far more likely to look past the eye candy and notice subtlety. In fact, learning how to do this is one of the best things about this site.
-
I thought about this quite a bit on Pinehurst No. 2. Even with the cool waste areas, there is not much that is dramatic to the eye because the land is pretty flat for the most part. The course has done well but I am not sure how it would do if built today.
-
I'm not sure how to define "we".
I think raters and rankers are more wowed by eye-candy nowadays than they once were.... I guess I include all those on this site that "think" about their architecture (as a whole)...
After all, there's no point including those that don't in the "we". They were always wowed by it to a large extent, even if that meant big lakes, tree-lined fairways or landscaped gardens.
I like bold too. There is a place for everything - as long as it has substance as well as style.
-
How do you define shot values?
-
Shot values is rater jargon. As such it means whatever the rater intends it to mean.
-
Ally,
I think you have to differentiate between "eye candy" and "scale"
Yale and BPB are enormous in their scale, thus, I wouldn't consider either course to be littered with "eye candy"
In general, the designs of CBM/SR/CB contained deep formidable bunkers, but, their function was unquestionable, thus, I wouldn't consider their features as "eye candy"
Now, the waterfalls at the Trump courses, no matter how nice they might look, are pure eye candy, serving no function in the play of the course.
Sometimes water features are "eye candy" and other times very functional, and ocassionally both.
-
Eye candy = Turnberry
The opposite = Carnoustie
Magazines, books and TV like eye candy because it helps sell magazines, books and TV time. New courses want to look 'candylike' to attract new members/visitors/clients.
Give me the more rustic for choice, as long as the greens are pure and true.
All the best.
-
Brian S,,,
In general, when a feature has no function in terms of playability, but serves as a visual enhancement, that might qualify the feature as "eye candy"
-
Pat Mucci:
Excellent description!
-
Are we more "wowed" by the eye-candy of golf courses these days than at any time in our golfing history?... Do we get carried away by huge imposing bunkers, horizon greens and "features" at the expense of straight forward subtleties and shot values in less inspired surroundings?
I can't speak to the "at any tine in our golfing history" part of the question, but I believe there is no question that we (the consumers of golf) are wowed by eye candy.
I remember Tom Doak talking about building his course at Streamsong and the constant push for more bunkers to wow and catch the eye of golfers. I believe the hole with the fewest bunkers is 11 (a long 4). I love this hole and the rumples protecting the green (and of course the green), but I've heard many, many criticisms of the hole for the lack of interest and bunkering. But I'd argue the hole has a ton of interest...just not a lot of greenside bunkers.
-
Brent - By shot values, I mean the option of different ways to play a shot that faces you. I can use a different term if it is not to your taste.
Pat - I agree with your comment about scale
Brian - Portmarnock got me thinking but not versus The Island (as per the other thread). More versus every new course that is built today, all with striking aesthetics and features. Some of those have great playing options, some of those less so.
Mac - I didn't know that example but it seems a good one to me.
-
Brent - By shot values, I mean the option of different ways to play a shot that faces you. I can use a different term if it is not to your taste.
No worries, Ally. It's a term that seems to mean different but very specific things to different people. For you it means options. For others it's more akin to difficulty. And so forth. When raters use it as a numerical rating dimension it means whatever is listed in their rater-training material. Just kind of a loaded term.
-
Ally,
I think you are right that most golf ears, even those of us on here, are often suckered in by the eye candy...
The first time I played Burnam & Berrow, I loved the course. However it was some of the holes on flatter land that I thought were holding it back. I was then lucky enough to play the course many more times, often with the Jedi Master of observing the subtle, Sean Arble, and he highlighted the subtly genius of the 7th. Mainly flat land but a subtle spine running the length of the hole which has or at least should have, a real impact on how you play the hole. I eventually loved the hole and miss it dearly...
Maybe it's this modern age? A photo on the Internet has to win us over quickly, but when one had to read the words of Darwin or Dickinson, there is the opportunity to be won over by the poetic subtle description?
Cheers,
James
-
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/295330_469413693125257_1415670446_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/63161_441886822544611_1394877508_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/483066_424256354307658_525610239_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/643889_408011272598833_1447229871_n.jpg)
Great ground certainly helps to eliminate the need for the extra eye candy.
-
Eye candy is like much to do with golf, you know it when you see it. I think much of the modern design mantra is as much about eye candy as architectural merit. In fact, I would go further and say the two are no longer separate in the gca world. Using merely ground movement to create the interest is essentially a lost art. Its not that archies can't do it and do it well. Its just that archies really want to create eye candy to justify fees and punters love the stuff anyway. Its a win-win.
A few examples of classic eye candy are
textured plantings; including grass, trees etc.
seamless fairway transitions and transitions in general
eliminating blind shots is a classic if there ever was one
Eye candy has a bad rep, but much of the time it can be good stuff because details can separate good from great. Like anything, eye candy can make a big difference if the right guy is in charge.
Ciao
-
Sean - Looking at it from the other side of the fence, I wonder if architects just put much more of a premium on the aesthetic look than they did 100 years ago when in general things were more simple?
I'm going to see Castle Stuart next year for the first time but remember looking at the photos and thinking a) how beautiful it looked but b) how it was bursting with deliberate features (including horizon green after horizon green). If the shots and playability and fun are generated by these features and as long as they feel "right" then that is perfect of course. Also playing Boston GC lately, I was amazed at how many ideas and “features” were incorporated in to the course. I thought the course was superb – likely the best modern inland course I have ever seen – but I started questioning whether the architect and crew were almost so skilled that they could just add things for fun. Although minimalist and natural looking, Boston GC is also quite stylised. And that is what I’m getting at in many ways. Every modern golf course is designed and built with a style. Has the loss of early simplicity made us view simple but effective things with less enthusiasm than we once did?
Why were courses like Portmarnock, Hoylake and Carnoustie seen by previous generations as the cream, despite their lack of visual eye-candy? And why has that view been usurped a little in the last 20 - 30 years. I think it is more complicated than Tom's explanation above that “championship” was seen as “best”. I do think however that it is part to do with how they photograph rather than how they play.
-
Ally
I don't think there is any question that aesthetics play a bigger role now than 100 years ago.
Part of the issue with subtlety is its much easier to get away with if the area is beautiful or if turf is exceptional enough to highlight the subtlety. Boonie pointed to Burnham's 7th and it is an exceptional example. Strandhills' 6th is a great example. Sure, the backdrop is lovely, but the green configuration works with the drive options perfectly without any flash whatsoever. The flash is the scenery, but the hole is very well designed.
I also think one of the reasons I like subtlety is because the "road map" aspect of the design is reduced. Road maps ar eone of my big pet peeves, but I think I am in an extreme minority on this issue. Much of today's aesthetics too often provide the "everything is in front of you" experience. Often times I admire the sort of aesthetics which hide annoying issues which remind golfers that the course was built. Sometimes its more or less a budget issue, but sometimes it is sloppy design/maintenance.
Perhaps one reason the Hoylakes and Carnastys of this world have taken a bit of a knock in recent times may be due to them not being as well designed as some of the newcomers. Today's best archies seem able to combine great design with great aesthetics. It shouldn't be surprising that with what we know today, the money floating around, some of the available sites, and great talent, that better courses are being built. Well, its not surprising to me. What is surprising is that it has taken so many years to get to this stage after so many great archies paved what was a wide, smooth road.
Ciao
-
Eye candy = Turnberry
The opposite = Carnoustie
Thomas:
I don't think you know the difference between eye candy and beauty. Everyone loves a course on a beautiful site. Eye candy is a question of how many visual features the architect adds to the equation. I think Ally has it right in his last post.
It's worth noting that 30 years ago there were only three gentlemen who made their living taking pictures of golf courses. Now there are at least five times as many. That's not all about what architects want ... it's also about what clients want and what the magazines want. We see way more magazine space [and way more bandwidth on this site] devoted to pictures of golf courses than to architectural descriptions of them.
-
Perhaps one reason the Hoylakes and Carnastys of this world have taken a bit of a knock in recent times may be due to them not being as well designed as some of the newcomers. Today's best archies seem able to combine great design with great aesthetics. It shouldn't be surprising that with what we know today, the money floating around, some of the available sites, and great talent, that better courses are being built. Well, its not surprising to me. What is surprising is that it has taken so many years to get to this stage after so many great archies paved what was a wide, smooth road.
Ciao
Whilst I agree with your comment about today's best architects combining great design with great aesthetics, I cannot agree with your first sentence. Some of these courses were built with a simpler design method and style, certainly. But why do I find myself enjoying rounds on the Carnousties of this world as much if not more than those courses with a lot more going on visually?
-
So if I understand the majority on this site, eye candy is a bad word, relegating those of us who love drop dead big deep bunkers to the hall of shame and ignorance.
I hereby nominate myself as an honorary member of the Eye Candy Society.
-
So if I understand the majority on this site, eye candy is a bad word, relegating those of us who love drop dead big deep bunkers to the hall of shame and ignorance.
Cary,
I don't think you've hit on the right definition of "eye candy", or rather, you've adopted the wrong definition of "eye candy"
I hereby nominate myself as an honorary member of the Eye Candy Society.
-
??? ::) ???
Thanks for the pictures Eric S. ! Funny how eye candy to one might be why did they do that to another.
In the third picture , the long flowing bunkers to the left are way too contrived and unnatural to me , though they may be wow to someone else.
-
Eric,
Where is that 4th picture?
-
Perhaps one reason the Hoylakes and Carnastys of this world have taken a bit of a knock in recent times may be due to them not being as well designed as some of the newcomers. Today's best archies seem able to combine great design with great aesthetics. It shouldn't be surprising that with what we know today, the money floating around, some of the available sites, and great talent, that better courses are being built. Well, its not surprising to me. What is surprising is that it has taken so many years to get to this stage after so many great archies paved what was a wide, smooth road.
Ciao
Whilst I agree with your comment about today's best architects combining great design with great aesthetics, I cannot agree with your first sentence. Some of these courses were built with a simpler design method and style, certainly. But why do I find myself enjoying rounds on the Carnousties of this world as much if not more than those courses with a lot more going on visually?
Ally
I can only speculate as you are really preaching to the choir (or soloist) in a way. Not that I particularly think Carnasty is a course I would hold up in admiration, but I get where you are coming from. I can only say why I enjoy some of the more basic courses. Usually the older, more functionally oriented courses are more user friendly - something I greatly value. But I come from very much the angle of "good enough". Most of the time I don't want to pay extra for the extra frills which after a while really become old hat. But a lot of people want more than that especially if travelling a long distance and incurring significant expense and who can blame them? Today's golf world is much more about making money, attracting golfers etc and doing the things which can make that happen. That wasn't nearly so much the case 100 years ago.
Ciao
-
Eric,
Where is that 4th picture?
Mark,
??? I'm sure Eric will correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like its looking back up the 17th fairway at Silloth from around 100 yards short of the green?
I think the 2nd picture is the 3rd at Deal. I've not got a clue on the others but I can make a few guesses knowing the photographer in question? ;D
Cheers,
James
-
James,
That's where I thought it was, I just didn't want to be wrong and look a fool. Somehow I never realised quite what a wonderful fairway that was. Perhaps through failing to hit it often enough.
-
Eric,
Where is that 4th picture?
Mark,
??? I'm sure Eric will correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like its looking back up the 17th fairway at Silloth from around 100 yards short of the green?
I think the 2nd picture is the 3rd at Deal. I've not got a clue on the others but I can make a few guesses knowing the photographer in question? ;D
Cheers,
James
You are both right (of course), it is the 17th at Silloth. I actually took the pic during a match with you, James. I'm looking now at the next frame where I've taken a picture of you taking a picture. :D
The first pic is looking back down the fairway on Streamsong Blue's 18th.
The second is looking back down the 3rd at Deal. Boony = 2/2.
The third pic is at May River (#12).
-
As to why some courses are less visually appealing, other than the location the Almighty provided, when yee olde courses were built designers/constructors didn't have access to big boys toys like bulldozers, scrapers, dump trucks and the like to play with so providing a limitation, especially if large scale funding wasn't available.
I wouldn't say that eye-candy is necessarily bad though. Eye-candy does have it's place, although perhaps to some who see beauty as lying within the holes, routing etc eye-candy is a 'less-good' variation. An alternative (and probably controversial) perspective would be that eye-candy courses provide a certain silver lining - because a proportion of golfers visit eye-candy courses instead of going to the more traditional (??'uglier'??) kinda courses thus freeing-up tee times elsewhere for enthusiasts of non-eye-candy golf.
BTW, the 7th at Burnham and Berrow is a splendid example of subtleness with that sly spine running the whole length of the hole plus continuing through the green itself.
All the best.
-
I couldn't agree more regarding the sublety of Burnham and Berrrow, the routing in particular. The rhythm and flow of walking in and around the dunes, and then back into some pretty wild landforms enhances the total experience despite the lack of exposed sand in the dunes. If B&B were built in the modern day it would probably have way more exposed sand (depending on the architect) and superfluous bunkering...B&B is just a terrific example of a subtle and refined golf course that doesn't try to over-do it with visual distraction. The natural green sites and use of small ground contours at B&B makes for interesting golf despite the flat ground. Lost Farm in Tasmania would be a comparable example as the golf course moves in and out of huge dunes and flat ground (Barnbougle to a lesser extent although the course does seem to breath in and out of the dunes).
The best golf courses allow the golfer to meander through the round and find different levels of excitement and relaxation. It sounds like eye candy has been tagged specifically to bunkering but it could also be different grasses, plant textures, and colors (i.e. exposed sand).
-
#10 Burnham and Berrow
How many architects could resist scratching a few bunkers into this hillside??
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-YcZ7BqG9FSo/UT40In_39xI/AAAAAAAADSw/6mykuyX3SnI/s640/DSCN2291.JPG)
-
The best golf courses allow the golfer to meander through the round and find different levels of excitement and relaxation. It sounds like eye candy has been tagged specifically to bunkering but it could also be different grasses, plant textures, and colors (i.e. exposed sand).
I referred to grass as well and was thinking of Worly with its monochrome green which makes the course not really shine very well in pix. For plantings I mostly have issues with trees creating the green wall. It is too often the case where there are so many trees that the lovely ones just blend in - a real shame that is especially when there are some great oaks etc about. Of course, this isn't just a matter of eye candy, but still points to an area of importance for eye candy.
Ciao
-
So if I understand the majority on this site, eye candy is a bad word, relegating those of us who love drop dead big deep bunkers to the hall of shame and ignorance.
I hereby nominate myself as an honorary member of the Eye Candy Society.
Cary,
As president of the ECS, I hereby accept your nomination. If you require verification of my bona fides, please contact Jeff Brauer; he was present when the famous Redanman installed me in the position for life after I came to Jeff's defense for his alleged use of "eye candy" and directional bunkers at his Cowboys course. The honor, however, came at a considerable cost as Redanman simultaneously rescinded his invitation to play Pine Valley with him in the fall. After several years of waiting for the call, I am beginning to think he was serious! BTW, admittance to the ECS is your second favorite painting (just kidding, though I do admire your work).
Ally,
Those damned "rankers"! Have you considered that those ill-informed folks might actually see a larger population of courses which include scale, boldness, and other things you might call "eye candy" IN ADDITION TO "subtlety"?
Jeffrey Stein,
I think that B & B is a wonderful course and look forward to playing it again, maybe next year. But in your discussion of the routing, the rhythm and flow of the round, have you given any thought to what happens when the wind blows from the north at, say, 30-35 mph and you pile on a score of avg. double bogey on the first 8 holes (you can reverse the scenario). Getting home quickly might be quite a relief! I know, the wind doesn't always blow that hard, and who cares about the scorecard. It is all about shot values, however one chooses to define them. ;) Out and in routings do have some issues; all courses do, even my beloved Cypress Point. If the owners/members/customers have the money, what is wrong with "eye candy"? Or is the suggestion that "eye candy" and subtlety/superior design principles are mutually exclusive?
It is curious how the unwashed crowds at famous museums are usually bursting out of the door. Can beauty/"eye candy" not have function? Is observation not participation? Is appreciation of beauty not physical at some level?
As Tom Doak points out, there is a large increase in the number of golf course photographers (not that it doesn't have much to do with changes in the medium and channels of distribution- digital technology and the internet- as opposed to the unsophisticated tastes of the golfing masses with too much money in their pockets). Beauty does sell. Might we wish to take ourselves a little bit less seriously (to think that our sensibilities and discernment are somehow superior)? After all, Golf is a big world.
-
Thomas
You mention Turnberry as being "guilty" of being an eye candy course. While its located in a beautiful spot, you could hardly say the architect exploited the scenery to the full extent by creating backdrops/horizon greens etc such as Ally describes at Castle Stuart. At Castle Stuart (and Kingsbarns) the concern for creating views/vistas, or if you like eye candy, was built into the routing and wasn't just a case of window dressing in terms of planting/bunker styles.
I suspect its that kind of eye-candy that Ally is referring to.
Niall
-
Lou - I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.
Eye candy and great golf are absolutely not mutually exclusive.... But courses with visual enhancements do provide a quicker "hit"... And we live in a quick hit society more so than we did 100 years ago.
-
Lou,
B&B is cool because of the overall experience exploring a really wild dunescape, without getting lost within them for all 18 holes. When I went for the first time last year I expected to see more exposed sand, however the members are probably exercising a healthy amount of restraint due to the wind that you refer to! Cruden Bay or Ballyneal would be a kind of opposite experience, where you are pretty much lost in awe of the towering dunes around you for most of the round.
At B&B there is a fantastic build up of anticipation as you move through the back nine and the golf course gets into the dunes again. I love golf courses that can pair a dramatic landscape with the end of the round. Cypress Point would perhaps be the ultimate example of this...
Or is the suggestion that "eye candy" and subtlety/superior design principles are mutually exclusive?
I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, a balance of the two in the appropriate setting exists at many golf courses. I have definitely found myself critical of golf courses with too many bunkers, trees, bushes, visual clutter, etc but I don't believe I've ever complained about a golf course being too subtle...what would that golf course look/play like??
-
Lou - I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.
Eye candy and great golf are absolutely not mutually exclusive.... But courses with visual enhancements do provide a quicker "hit"... And we live in a quick hit society more so than we did 100 years ago.
As a senior, I am naturally inclined to think that things are going to hell. My more rational self, however, occasionally gets through and forces me to consider that perhaps things are evolving overall to the better. In terms of gca, what is routinely available to me today is much superior to that of my early years in the game, the 1970s.
Rather than me "getting the wrong end of the stick", perhaps I am a bit more receptive to and respectful of the needs and desires of the golfing public. Often times we get but a couple of minutes to make a good impression, whether we are selling a product or making a new acquaintance. Golf is a visual game- probably an important reason why seaside and links courses have a leg up in the rankings. What is being presented in the pejorative- "eye candy"- is actually something that's positive, an attempt to appeal to the golfer. If it is a "quick hit", maybe it is a necessary one. Unless you really do thing that great golf and eye candy are mutually exclusive. It is more expensive to do both, no doubt about that, and perhaps that is the crux of the matter (and why there appears to be quite a bit of Fazio envy).
There are plenty of very smart, sophisticated blondes out there. Some plain types may have interesting personalities, and, if that floats your boat, all the more power to you. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
-
Lou - I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.
Eye candy and great golf are absolutely not mutually exclusive.... But courses with visual enhancements do provide a quicker "hit"... And we live in a quick hit society more so than we did 100 years ago.
As a senior, I am naturally inclined to think that things are going to hell. My more rational self, however, occasionally gets through and forces me to consider that perhaps things are evolving overall to the better. In terms of gca, what is routinely available to me today is much superior to that of my early years in the game, the 1970s.
Rather than me "getting the wrong end of the stick", perhaps I am a bit more receptive to and respectful of the needs and desires of the golfing public. Often times we get but a couple of minutes to make a good impression, whether we are selling a product or making a new acquaintance. Golf is a visual game- probably an important reason why seaside and links courses have a leg up in the rankings. What is being presented in the pejorative- "eye candy"- is actually something that's positive, an attempt to appeal to the golfer. If it is a "quick hit", maybe it is a necessary one. Unless you really do thing that great golf and eye candy are mutually exclusive. It is more expensive to do both, no doubt about that, and perhaps that is the crux of the matter (and why there appears to be quite a bit of Fazio envy).
There are plenty of very smart, sophisticated blondes out there. Some plain types may have interesting personalities, and, if that floats your boat, all the more power to you. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Lou,
Eye Candy as I describe it is not being presented in the pejorative.
However, a golfer can be appealed to in more ways than one. He is just being appealed to in a more visual way than he once was.... And I wonder whether less visual courses are suffering for it...
And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...
Ally
-
And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...
Given the recent comments on another (long running) thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52763.msg1321958.html#new - would a certain new course just north of Aberdeen be an example of an eye-candified links?
All the best
-
And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...
Given the recent comments on another (long running) thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52763.msg1321958.html#new - would a certain new course just north of Aberdeen be an example of an eye-candified links?
All the best
D'you know, I'm not so sure Thomas...
I think many other architects would have gone to town on that site with the amount of visual features that could have been incorporated. I actually think the design is restrained... and also quite conservative...
-
And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...
Given the recent comments on another (long running) thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52763.msg1321958.html#new - would a certain new course just north of Aberdeen be an example of an eye-candified links?
ThomasDai,
I haven't played Trump's course, so I couldn't say.
Have you played it ?
If so, is it an "example of an eye-candified links" ?
If you haven't played it, why would you imply that that's what the course represents ?
-
I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.
All the best.
-
I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.
I had a suspicion that you were a fraud and now it appears that you've proved me right.
P.S. if you claim you don't read colored writing and larger than standard size print, why did you respond to a post with colored writing and larger than standard size print ?
I guess it's just more evidence that you're a fraud and not to be taken at your word. .
-
I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.
I had a suspicion that you were a fraud and now it appears that you've proved me right.
P.S. if you claim you don't read colored writing and larger than standard size print, why did you respond to a post with colored writing and larger than standard size print ?
Because not reading it doesn't mean he can't see it!
And out.
I guess it's just more evidence that you're a fraud and not to be taken at your word. .
-
I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.
I had a suspicion that you were a fraud and now it appears that you've proved me right.
P.S. if you claim you don't read colored writing and larger than standard size print, why did you respond to a post with colored writing and larger than standard size print ?
Because not reading it doesn't mean he can't see it!
And out.
I guess it's just more evidence that you're a fraud and not to be taken at your word. .
Paul Gray,
You're hearby anointed with colossal moron status.
If he didn't read it and comprehend it, he wouldn't respond to it.
To help you out, think of Rene Descartes.
Since you've achieved colossal moron status, I'll give you more help. "cogito ergo sum"
-
I've tried Pat, God knows I've tried, to apply the principle to your remark, but there really is no coherent link. The existence of green ink was never in dispute.
Like Tom, I hereof do not respond to anything you may have to say in this thread.
-
I've tried Pat, God knows I've tried, to apply the principle to your remark, but there really is no coherent link. The existence of green ink was never in dispute.
Like Tom, I hereof do not respond to anything you may have to say in this thread.
That's why I anointed you with "colossal" moron status.
This is really funny.
Do you think I care ?
Do you really think I give a rat's ass as to whether or not you'll respond on this thread ?
-
From the Medinah No.1 thread:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/jryanpotts/IMG_9262_zps552ad707.jpg) (http://s101.photobucket.com/user/jryanpotts/media/IMG_9262_zps552ad707.jpg.html)
Now, that bunker over the lake - that is eye candy. I have no idea whether it's Tom Doak or Bendelow who originally put it there and I'm not passing judgement on whether it's good or bad.
Increasingly we see many of our favourite architects putting carry-bunkers right in to the eye of play. In general, I like this a lot and it is a return to classic principles in my view where penal mixed with strategic in perfect harmony. It was always something near the top of my "to do" list when the right opportunity came along.
It is happening a lot though and Jeffrey's example of Burnham and Berrow above hammers it home even more... Said Jeffrey "How many architects could resist the temptation to scratch a few bunkers in to that hill".
It is undoubtedly eye candy as opposed to subtlety. Just so happens it's eye-candy of the type I'm a fan of...
-
Ally,
I was recently playing golf with a young man who was striking the ball rather well.
Then, we came to a par 4 hole with water right in front of the tee.
The water was non-threatening to any drive that he had hit the entire day.
While the carry requirement was decent, it wasn't overly challenging.
He hit a miserable pull hook.
I asked him why/how he hit his drive so poorly.
He said that the water bothered him and made him get defensive to the degree that he gripped his driver tighter, resulting in the pull hook.
I said, "but, the water wasn't even in play for you"
And he just said, it made me feel uncomfortable.
In the 40 years that I've been playing that hole from that particular tee, even into a good wind, the water never influenced my drive.
But, to some people, the signal sent to the eye has a substantive impact, one that alters their play.
So, while I might agree with your assessment of the double hazard pictured (water and bunker), to some, it will prove very effective at rattling their mind/game.
What may be "eye candy" to us, is a real and threatening feature to others, because it IS IN PLAY.
To me, "eye candy" tends to be removed from the field or corridor of play.
-
Patrick,
I probably should have used a different term other than eye-candy.
For I am talking about all visual features that are specifically created or utilised by the architect, not only those that are solely out-of play. However, I agree that good visuals tend to affect play and rarely seem superfluous. But that is not always the case. Backdrops are eye-candy that don't affect play but can be very skilfully used in a course routing.
-
Patrick,
I probably should have used a different term other than eye-candy.
For I am talking about all visual features that are specifically created or utilised by the architect, not only those that are solely out-of play. However, I agree that good visuals tend to affect play and rarely seem superfluous. But that is not always the case.
Backdrops are eye-candy that don't affect play but can be very skilfully used in a course routing.
Could you give me some examples ?
Thanks
-
From the Medinah No.1 thread:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/jryanpotts/IMG_9262_zps552ad707.jpg) (http://s101.photobucket.com/user/jryanpotts/media/IMG_9262_zps552ad707.jpg.html)
Now, that bunker over the lake - that is eye candy. I have no idea whether it's Tom Doak or Bendelow who originally put it there and I'm not passing judgement on whether it's good or bad.
Increasingly we see many of our favourite architects putting carry-bunkers right in to the eye of play. In general, I like this a lot and it is a return to classic principles in my view where penal mixed with strategic in perfect harmony. It was always something near the top of my "to do" list when the right opportunity came along.
It is happening a lot though and Jeffrey's example of Burnham and Berrow above hammers it home even more... Said Jeffrey "How many architects could resist the temptation to scratch a few bunkers in to that hill".
It is undoubtedly eye candy as opposed to subtlety. Just so happens it's eye-candy of the type I'm a fan of...
Ally,
wasn't Doak
Camel bunker was around for years
-
I've reinvigorated this as an appendix to Mark B's "Memorability" thread, because I think his premise is essentially what I was getting at here. He just described it far more intellectually.
But I do think that now - more than ever - "overdesign" of golf holes is prevalent in order to prioritise wow / memorability / first play impact (call it what you will - it amounts to the same thing)....Even our best loved architects are guilty of this, I think sometimes because they are so skilled, they can effectively design for fun, adding features at will.
One thing I will say, given that it is topical at present, is that I think the Renaissance Club absolutely does not fit in to this category, being admirably restrained...
Again, I will reiterate that built-in "wow" can absolutely go hand in hand with the greatest design... Just not all the time... And on occasion, "simple" might have provided a better solution...
-
I'm going to see Castle Stuart next year for the first time but remember looking at the photos and thinking a) how beautiful it looked but b) how it was bursting with deliberate features (including horizon green after horizon green). If the shots and playability and fun are generated by these features and as long as they feel "right" then that is perfect of course.
Ally
I've selected a quote from you from last year. Now that you've seen CS what do you think ?
Niall
-
Ally,
Thanks for bumping this. Yes, "eye candy," "memorability," and let's add "definition:" it all grows tiresome, playing courses where the architecture must be "plus plus" and spoon fed to the golfer.
Let me ask: this type of architecture, is it less flexible? Does it offer less variety? Not in terms of the number of hole locations and such but rather in the actual playing?
-
I'm going to see Castle Stuart next year for the first time but remember looking at the photos and thinking a) how beautiful it looked but b) how it was bursting with deliberate features (including horizon green after horizon green). If the shots and playability and fun are generated by these features and as long as they feel "right" then that is perfect of course.
Ally
I've selected a quote from you from last year. Now that you've seen CS what do you think ?
Niall
I feel exactly as I expected when I wrote that...
I think Castle Stuart is absolutely top-notch design and an example of a team working excellently together... There is no denying that the site is bursting with deliberate features but I think it works perfectly and given that it was constructed rather than found, that is absolutely fine with me...
In this case...
But not always...