Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Paul Gray on January 13, 2015, 07:08:05 AM
-
Arguable, and very contentiously, all arts are merely sciences which we don't yet know enough about to understand the laws of.
Convenient wisdom has it, amongst the GCA collective at least, that golf course architecture is an art form. Possibly it is, but any number of disciplines began within the art and evolved into recognised sciences as greater understand enabled humans to appropriately record certain data which could be shown to consistently produce the same results. Economics remains somewhere between art and science. Arguably psychology does as well. Presumably though, and obviously this is debatable, greater understanding of both will see them both recognised as sciences in the future.
So, by means of reduction, will golf course architecture ever be quantifiable to such a degree that it will be classed as a collection of facts which fit neatly into the scientific model or will it always have indefinable factors which forever leave it in the realm of art?
-
Always more of an art than a science, "ceteris paribus" will never be true to no real way of testing hypotheses.
Economics isn't a science either. It's like to think it is, but it isn't. May be except behavioural economics, in a lab conditions etc...
-
Golf course architecture is engineering, which is science, which is quantifiable.
If I were hiring an architect, I would certainly hope that his greens and bunkers "fit neatly into the scientific model" so that they would not fall apart in heavy rains.
-
Hmm, if I may......
Golf course building is engineer. When I mentioned architecture, I was referring to the design. Is it ultimately geometry?
Economics is not YET a science. Whether it ever will be remains to be seen. That's the point of the discussion.
-
Paul, there is a large amount of design that is engineering (or at least technical). We just don't talk about it that much.
A designer will spend more time on drainage, irrigation, specifications, bills of quantities, functional details, site constraints and multi-discipline coordination than he will on the arty side.
-
Ally,
I realise that but the focus of the thread is on the conceptual side of architecture.
-
Hard to separate the design and engineering side, IMHO. Being a professional architect means both cool ideas and making them work. In building architecture, would an architect designing a cool platform that falls down be called a good architect?
There are lots of functional things in golf architecture you can measure - number of holes (!) green and tee size, drainage, etc. etc. etc. Architects have even come up with charts to measure balance (see Hurdzan's book for the Stanley Thompson chart and other books for other examples)
Heck, even CBM had his detailed perfect (or ideal) course in which to compare designs to, based on length, hole types, etc.
Even some of the artistry is probably measurable, as theorists have studied proportion, visual balance, etc. etc. etc. to try to determine what is pleasing to the eye. (and that goes back to Roman times, so you would think it would be able to have been figured out by now)
And to be honest, and to answer the original question, with all the books, critics, etc., we probably are very close to quantifying everything. How many reviews focus on what is non-standard from what is expected? The xxth is blind, or the green at hole no. 3, is too small, or the course in only par 70, etc. The various rules are pretty standard and I contend even the courses of the iconoclasts are about 90% of what all designers do.
It is only the last 10% that falls into any sort of unique design philosophy that may produce celebrated differences among architects.
-
Is it really a science if some of its finest examples were constructed with a mule and drag-pan? Then again, I likely lack the intellectual capacity to meaningfully contribute to this thread. Carry on.
Bogey
-
Science isn't really a thing as such, it is a method of investigation which involves taking observations and experimenting to test hypothesis. So you could easily apply the scientific method to any number of the tasks required to design a golf course.
-
The problem with the premise is the assumption that science cannot be used in a creative fashion. Of course anything that has to function must be scintifically sound, but there are creative solutions to science and engineering problems.
-
Don,
Very true. It is a form of creativity to "see" how certain elements can combine into something else, which is not that much different than golf design, or for that matter, music, comedy, art, etc.
In GCA, in many cases, we see a situation, like pond left, and start applying possible design concepts we know from the past, and end up with something like a Cape Hole, for instance. Or something else. We combine several common elements with perhaps one unique one to craft a solution (and unique design) to a specific piece of property.
But Ross is right, too. The design process is similar to the scientific process - ID a problem, look at alternate solutions, pick the best, refine as required (including, sometimes starting over under a different premise found to be better)
I believe many participants here don't see the value of that process, and in some cases, great architects like FLW, market themselves as "Master Architects" sort of able to see things as a whole. But, in reality, most of us have to break the design down to several different and smaller parts to solve the big puzzle first (routing) and then a series of smaller puzzles, such as greens, tees, fairways, each of which is really a separate design problem. And most design problems involve some kind of compromise of "give this to get that."
And, the things that go into a good design - drainage, circulation (especially with carts), maintenance, etc. go far beyond simply saying "a bunker would be nice here." The nice bunker thing is about 10% of the total thought process!
And back to the OP, yes, each of those features can be greatly quantified. Does the green get enough sunlight to grow turf? Big enough to withstand traffic? Enough areas to move good cup locations? Ease of walk on from front (walkers) and side (riders). Is it visible to golfer? Does the ball react "correctly" (whatever that may be) when it hits the green? While each green varies in the degree in which they meet minimum functional needs, most would say they have to meet a lot of them to be a good design.
And, that is all before the golfer even weights in with a "I just like it for some reason" which will always be the last thing we can quantify, under, perhaps, the saying of "There is no accounting for taste....." :D
-
The problem with the premise is the assumption that science cannot be used in a creative fashion. Of course anything that has to function must be scintifically sound, but there are creative solutions to science and engineering problems.
It was certainly never my intent to suggest an assumption that science cannot be used in a creative fashion.
Essentially, if we actually knew all the different variables, would the apparent mysticism of the art form actually be replaced by predictable reasoning for all those "I just like it like that" comments. In other words, person 1 will always like angles combined as a,b,c when the variables are x,y,z. That, in this context, is the fundamental distinction between art and science.
-
"Economics isn't a science either. It's like to think it is, but it isn't."
Greg T. -
You are right about that. The fact that 44 of the 45 economists on the Wall Street Journal panel predicted, at the end of 2013, that interest rates would rise in 2014 (they went down instead!) tells you everything you need to know about the "science" of economics.
The 45th economist on the panel predicted interest rates would be unchanged. He was wrong too. ;)
DT
-
The fact that 44 of the 45 economists on the Wall Street Journal panel predicted, at the end of 2013, that interest rates would rise in 2014 (they went down instead!) tells you everything you need to know about the "science" of economics.
I know, right? Thomas Edison also sucked big time, wrong on thousands of filament materials.
-
Paul
IMO, absolutely not. Golf courses aren't about testing data. What would it mean to apply the scientific method to golf architecture? A bunch of data is measured to what purpose? Can the data improve a golf course in aspects other than the nuts n' bolts stuff like drainage etc? In terms of how a design interfaces with a golfer, how does one conduct a fair test in an experiment with so many unknown variables at play (ie the weather)? Can we call an archie a scientist? Does anybody think of a building archie as a scientist? It could be argued that in the right hands, course design is better off being less scientific...hence the push for "random" features.
Ciao
-
Its an art and a science.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54713.0.html
-
Paul
IMO, absolutely not. Golf courses aren't about testing data. What would it mean to apply the scientific method to golf architecture? A bunch of data is measured to what purpose? Can the data improve a golf course in aspects other than the nuts n' bolts stuff like drainage etc? In terms of how a design interfaces with a golfer, how does one conduct a fair test in an experiment with so many unknown variables at play (ie the weather)? Can we call an archie a scientist? Does anybody think of a building archie as a scientist? It could be argued that in the right hands, course design is better off being less scientific...hence the push for "random" features.
Ciao
Sean,
Your referring to your dislike of the idea. That isn't the point. Nor is the point whether we can currently quantity architecture, hence my mention of "science we can't yet quantify."
I suppose ultimately its a philosophical point regarding the nature (or lack of) of determinism. Maybe it's a bit too abstract to get into here and now, which I personally think is a shame. Still, I half expected the thread to sink without a trace.
PS: Thanks for the link Sven to the former excellent debate.
-
Paul
Its not a dislike of the idea at all. I think the concept of architecure as a science is seriously flawed. Again, if architecture is science, are archies scientists? I don't think so. Its difficult to imagine architecture changing so much in the future that it is considered/becomes a science, but who knows? All I can speak to is the here and now.
Ciao
-
Paul
Its not a dislike of the idea at all. I think the concept of architecure is seriously flawed. Again, if architecture is science, are archies scientists? I don't think so. Its difficult to imagine architecture changing so much in the future that it is considered/becomes a science, but who knows? All I can speak to is the here and now.
Ciao
Ah ha, there in lies the distinction which no one else was focusing on ie. not the here and now. Good answer.
More than enough input from me. People can discuss if they so wish. Dead thread. ;D
-
IMHO it is an artisan craft. So many attempts are made to make it more than it is and for what reason? There is absolutely nothing wrong with an artisan craft. Is a furniture maker an artist or an engineer? Is a potter an artist or an engineer? Why do they teach industrial design at art schools? The object is to get a good product on the ground. 10 golf designer might have 10 different ways to do it with one having 50 pages of plans and another just staking it out from a line routing. When the product is ready for the consumer all that matters is that it is a good product. How it got there is nothing but hype....when I first got in the business I thought it was one way but the longer I was in it the more I realized that so many were hype....oh well...
-
I guess I'm obligated to weigh in here...
First - comments about Frank Lloyd Wright.
There used to be thread discussions by the structural engineering community about his lack of understanding of structural engineering principles. For those of you who have to build things, he refused to put any reinforcing steel in some of his concrete slabs, most notably Falling Water. There is a long history of required retrofits to keep some of his work standing.
Architecture and Engineering are generally two different disciplines. I'm aware of one Architectural Engineering program out there. They are usually licensed by the same board, but under different examinations.
I'm waiting to hear the screaming when GC Architects are deemed to be under the jurisdiction of a Landscape Architecture board, and subjected to their requirements to practice in a given state. Don't laugh, it will happen eventually. 50 states, 50 different licenses required! Enjoy!
As for construction, we engineers have a saying: we can do anything you want with enough money.
That's when you might be interested in what the practitioners of the Dismal Science (Economics) have to say.
I've posted engineering questions before on here, but so far, only Tom Doak was willing to discuss the specific concept I was referencing.
My thoughts?
I might be just a tad biased ;), but I think Architecture and Engineering are two separate disciplines.
We can certainly quantify the Engineering side of things. I'm not so sure about the GCA side of it.
-
This from wiki: Architecture has to do with planning, designing and constructing form, space and ambience to reflect functional, technical, social, environmental and aesthetic considerations.
The space and ambience are the two facets of a golf course that sometimes make me think that what we call architecture is actually course design. Think about all those Top 100 courses built in the dunes by the sea, wasn't the space and ambience already there? Likewise, how many people have walked onto a blank canvas site and felt it would be a good site to build a course? Isn't this another example of space and ambience already existing prior to any man made intervention?
-
I guess I'm obligated to weigh in here...
First - comments about Frank Lloyd Wright.
There used to be thread discussions by the structural engineering community about his lack of understanding of structural engineering principles. For those of you who have to build things, he refused to put any reinforcing steel in some of his concrete slabs, most notably Falling Water. There is a long history of required retrofits to keep some of his work standing.
Architecture and Engineering are generally two different disciplines. I'm aware of one Architectural Engineering program out there. They are usually licensed by the same board, but under different examinations.
I'm waiting to hear the screaming when GC Architects are deemed to be under the jurisdiction of a Landscape Architecture board, and subjected to their requirements to practice in a given state. Don't laugh, it will happen eventually. 50 states, 50 different licenses required! Enjoy!
As for construction, we engineers have a saying: we can do anything you want with enough money.
That's when you might be interested in what the practitioners of the Dismal Science (Economics) have to say.
I've posted engineering questions before on here, but so far, only Tom Doak was willing to discuss the specific concept I was referencing.
My thoughts?
I might be just a tad biased ;), but I think Architecture and Engineering are two separate disciplines.
We can certainly quantify the Engineering side of things. I'm not so sure about the GCA side of it.
Jonothan,
Which concept were you discussing with TD?
And, I think you thinking on the subject is correct. I have always felt as though I could hire an engineer to inspect or consult on my golf designs. I don't agree that there will ever be a license such as required by LAR's etc....it's just too small of a business and it will not even exist that much longer....I think if you will investigate you will find that many if not most golf architects will have an engineer handle cart paths and specs and also place such under the engineer's E&O insurance.
-
No, golf architecture from scratch is best classified and understood as an artistic endeavor, that only permits the most generalized and subjective quantification...
cheers
vk
-
......can't YET quantify.
-
Paul
IMO, absolutely not. Golf courses aren't about testing data. What would it mean to apply the scientific method to golf architecture? A bunch of data is measured to what purpose? Can the data improve a golf course in aspects other than the nuts n' bolts stuff like drainage etc? In terms of how a design interfaces with a golfer, how does one conduct a fair test in an experiment with so many unknown variables at play (ie the weather)? Can we call an archie a scientist? Does anybody think of a building archie as a scientist? It could be argued that in the right hands, course design is better off being less scientific...hence the push for "random" features.
Ciao
First, economics is a science. I am an undergraduate studying economics at Harvard and have been exposed to many researchers and have conducted my own research. Just like any other social scientists, economists conduct experiments and use data to empirically evaluate relevant questions. The scientific method is key to developing economic understandings.
That the predictions made by economists are sometimes (often) wrong is not evidence of that the field is not legitimately scientific. As many of my professors often admit, economics is a new endeavor; academic methods and consensus is rapidly evolving. When serious economists make predictions and find them to be wrong, they then go back and examine how the actual outcomes differ from the projections. They look at the phenomena and the variables which could have contributed to the deviation. Being "wrong" is a good thing and contributes predictions being better in the future.
Golf Course Architecture
This question which you raise is a very important one. I have long thought that standard economic models have applicability to golf. In the game's most rational form, the player's goal is to minimize his score. Doing so requires that his golf course strategy be consistent with that goal. The psychologists Daniel Kahneman*** and Amos Tversky spawned a body of economic research which focuses on behavior and decision making under risk which I believe can be used to assess golf course decision making.
The first step in conducting this research would be to review the existing literature on behavior and decisions under risk as well as mathematical risk modeling and determine which papers and methods have applicability to golf.
Second, you would have to create definitions and a standard model (fully rational) of golf course strategy and behavior. The full development of this model is likely to be central to any rigorous body of research on golf course behavior.
Third, you would have to use real data on how golfers actually behave in order to test these models. The best existing data is ShotLink data which the PGATOUR has gathered over the past 10+ years.
I can think of hundreds of possible avenues to explore. BUT, the amount of work require to develop and test a framework for golf behavior is MIND NUMBING! Especially the data analysis part. I have experience doing empirical research. My past work has taught me what would be necessary in order to clean and adapt a dataset like ShotLink so that it can be analyzed using standard econometric methods. It is hard for me to overstate how tedious and time consuming this sort of undertaking would be. There are also conceptual hurdles such as accounting for omitted variables and other biases. These endeavors are possible, however.
With respect to the golf course architecture, after developing this framework and the models, one could gain very helpful empirical insights into the design aspects which distinguish good holes. I don't think that it is controversial to assert that there are many different kinds of holes (eg. long par 3s, short par 4s, etc...). Conceptually, it should be possible to show that the best holes within each category exhibit similar risk profiles. This is not to say that they are the same. Instead, what I am saying is that risk-reward-punishment aspects of a type of golf hole relative to its difficulty, yardage, and number of potential strategies are similar among the best holes of each category.
If you have the goal of categorizing the risk/strategic profiles of all holes in golf, I think that you would see that when normalized, there are a lot of common traits. If you disagree with this, think about the fact there is so much heterogeneity in golf courses around the world and there is no accepted standard by which people do normalizations.
After I finish my thesis in march, I am going to work on developing some of the ideas which I have discussed here. I have a professor who has promised to help me think through some of the conceptual difficulties associated with this project. Please let me know what you think.
***Daniel Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics for this work.
-
Andrew:
Supposedly the Freakonomics guys are working on a book based on golf. A couple of years ago they were recruiting folks to participate in different studies to examine behavior of play on the golf course.
It'll be interesting to see what kind of data set they came up with, and what conclusions they draw from it.
Sven
-
Andrew:
Supposedly the Freakonomics guys are working on a book based on golf. A couple of years ago they were recruiting folks to participate in different studies to examine behavior of play on the golf course.
It'll be interesting to see what kind of data set they came up with, and what conclusions they draw from it.
Sven
Really, I have been in touch with Steve Levitt about something else. I should get in touch with him re: golf. Also, his colleague at UChicago, Richard Thaler, is a golf enthusiast who I intend to reach out to.
-
Mike,
I was discussing the concept of soil stabilization techniques - specifically if they were considered for the 4th green at Pacific Dunes. There is a rather large, and expected to grow, undercutting of the cliff. Tom answered publicly that they didn't consider bringing in engineers.
Here's the exchange:
I don't think your participation discourages honest discussion of your work. I also have noted that you won't always respond to questions regarding some aspects of your work. You may not always see them, I get that, but for some of the questions I've asked that are more technical in nature, I don't see much discussion of.
Here's a new topic as an example: The 4th green at Pacific Dunes.
When I played there, I looked to the right of the green, and I thought that there was some undercutting via natural processes or the mechanical properties of the soil itself. I think that left alone for a few more years, a decent size portion of the collar and perhaps the green may fall off to the beach below.
Here's my question: How much does GCA work take into account engineering principles? If a site is analyzed before a design is completed would the tendency be to change the routing, or to work on a solution for the issues present to incorporate the preferred routing.
For the 4th at PD, are there any plans to mitigate the undercutting?
Jonathan:
Well, that's a topic most professionals wouldn't want to touch, because there are potential liability issues and the whole subject raises the possibility of "malpractice," if there is such a thing in golf architecture.
However, I'll bite.
Most architects would never build a green that close to the cliff edge, even if allowed. To be safe, they would build it 25 or 50 feet inland, where it didn't come into play so dramatically. It would be a good hole but would become better many years later, when the edge had eroded a bit and had evolved to be really in play. Essentially, we decided not to wait. I told Mr. Keiser that eventually the green would erode, and at that point we would have to build a temporary green to the left of the dune, and carve out more of the dune on the right side, to rebuild the green much like it is today. That was a dozen years ago, and so far the green has not eroded nearly as much as any of us anticipated it might ... [knock wood] ... though someday it will.
We did not pursue an "engineering" solution for the site. The green sits on a cliff top 100 feet high, with various layers of sand and sandstone underneath. I'm not sure anyone would let you work at the very edge, if you asked.
I was familiar with the situation and prepared to take the approach we did, because the site for that golf hole reminded me immediately of the 7th hole at Ballybunion, where they went through exactly the process I'm describing above, after part of the original green fell away in the 1970's. I don't know if Molly Gourlay planned it that way, or not. I do know that the replacement green they've built is nowhere near as natural-looking as others on the course, because they are trying to be "smart" and leave a buffer for some future erosion.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58131.msg1362950.html#msg1362950
-
Andrew,
Economics is not YET a science. Do not believe all you are taught in econometrics.
Nonetheless, your grasp of the concept of the science of architecture does clearly indicate that you appreciate the premise of the question.
Paul Gray
Bsc Economics
-
Andrew Mack, nice post! Sounds like you are quite interested in applying economic concepts to golf, and I find it quite fascinating. I enjoyed reading Kanneman's latest book, and I'm also a big fan of N.N. Taleb and Mandelbrot.
I would highly recommend that you check out work done by Rich Hunt (https://twitter.com/richie3jack) in his yearly Golf Synopsis. Rich, a statistician, has been developing ideas similar to some of those you mention for quite a few years now, and he gets better every year. He actually does pour through all that ShotLink data.
Of course, there is also Mark Broady, creator of Strokes Gained, and author of Every Shot Counts. It's likely that you may have heard of both of these guys, but if you haven't, I thought I would mention them.
To get back on-topic, GCA might be a science that we can't yet quantify, but I think it will be a very very very long time before we are able to do so. And I actually pretty happy about that.
-
I'm waiting to hear the screaming when GC Architects are deemed to be under the jurisdiction of a Landscape Architecture board, and subjected to their requirements to practice in a given state. Don't laugh, it will happen eventually. 50 states, 50 different licenses required!
Jonathan,
That's a very complex subject that I'm all too familiar with.
About five years ago my wife (what she does professionally) went through all the statutes for me.
In simplest terms (because I don't want to have an open ongoing discussion on this subject):
Some States clearly list golf architecture as a completely different profession than Landscape Architecture in their statutes.
It's been challenged in court, the golf architects won, so you won't see your premise play out.
In a couple of States certain memberships are listed as an exception and write to practice golf architecture.
In some instances, the question of licensing is decidedly "grey"
That is where the Landscape Architecture Boards have made attempts to have it declared Landscape Architecture
To this date it is not listed as Landscape Architecture in any statutes - "but what it is" is still up to interpretation
Interestingly, Civil Engineering License in these States is just as valid as a Landscape Architecture for the same works.
So in a nutshell, it won't happen.
BTW, between a third and a half of the golf architects I know are registered Landscape Architects in the US
-
Andrew,
Economics is not YET a science. Do not believe all you are taught in econometrics.
Nonetheless, your grasp of the concept of the science of architecture does clearly indicate that you appreciate the premise of the question.
Paul Gray
Bsc Economics
Paul
In the case of economics we are waiting for the science to be stronger...I think much stronger (in other words the assuptions have to be drastically reduced) before we can say its a proper science. Maybe that day will come, but I fear if more intricate models for human behaviour and policy are developed nobody will understand what an econ junkie is talking about!
Not sure how architecture fits in though. How can the artistic side of the coin be quantified and codified? Perhaps more importantly, will that help architecture in any way even if it is possible to do so?
Ciao
-
Andrew,
Economics is not YET a science. Do not believe all you are taught in econometrics.
Nonetheless, your grasp of the concept of the science of architecture does clearly indicate that you appreciate the premise of the question.
Paul Gray
Bsc Economics
Paul
Firstly, sorry to go all Mucci.
In the case of economics we are waiting for the science to be stronger...I think much stronger (in other words the assuptions have to be drastically reduced) before we can say its a proper science. Maybe that day will come, but I fear if more intricate models for human behaviour and policy are developed nobody will understand what an econ junkie is talking about!
The fact that it ISN'T a science is exactly what I was saying to Andrew. If a degree in economics taught me anything, it's that the subject is most certainly NOT currently a science.
Not sure how architecture fits in though. How can the artistic side of the coin be quantified and codified? Perhaps more importantly, will that help architecture in any way even if it is possible to do so?
It is conceivable, however distant in the future, that we will be able to quantify what appeals to an individual. We can very roughly predict now who will like what. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, as our understanding of the mind increases, our ability to predict what appeals to you vs me vs Golfer One has the potential to increase. At such a point we have repeatable, quantified formulae which can be GUARANTEED to produce a certain response. I'm not saying for one second that such a demystification process would be either desirable or beneficial. As with most sciences, we'd probably assume far too early that we had all the answers and remove individual interpretation from the process long before we were able to replace it with solid formulae. Actually, economics is a perfect example of just that!
Ciao
-
8) GCA a science? maybe, economics a science? maybe, but just practicing scientific methods and technology around a subject doesn't make something a science... proven repeatabe quantifiable things do.
Even something like industrial chemistry is full of uncertainty along with the kinowledge and facts, folks just know and have generally learned how it works. But deductive and inductive reasoning are still alive and continue to be developed and cross fertilize each other... the paradigm
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/IndustrialChemistrySALRev05_zps2215d7ab.jpg)
-
Hi,
Is cooking (or more grander, creating a restaurant based in one's ability to cook) more of an art or a science? Certainly, elements of both underpin the final result.
Whatever your opinion/answer, golf course design/architecture is likely to fall into a similar category for your viewpoint.
cheers
vk
-
In some instances, the question of licensing is decidedly "grey"
That is where the Landscape Architecture Boards have made attempts to have it declared Landscape Architecture
To this date it is not listed as Landscape Architecture in any statutes - "but what it is" is still up to interpretation
Interestingly, Civil Engineering License in these States is just as valid as a Landscape Architecture for the same works.
So in a nutshell, it won't happen.
BTW, between a third and a half of the golf architects I know are registered Landscape Architects in the US
Ian,
Thanks.
One brief comment - not intended to draw this out.
Most states write the rules that leave it up to the practitioner to determine his/her own level of competence in a given area.
Short answer is: don't get in over your head!
This of course (pun intended) applies more to the construction, (earthwork, irrigation systems, drainage, cartpaths, bridges, any buildings) than the location of the golf design features.
-
A GCA must understand drainage, traffic patterns, agronomy and so on, not to make a great course, but to avoid screwing up what could otherwise be a great course.
Art sets the bar for how great a course can be, but a lack of science can lower that bar.
-
A GCA must understand drainage, traffic patterns, agronomy and so on, not to make a great course, but not avoid screwing up what could otherwise be a great course.
Art sets the bar for how great a course can be, but a lack of science can lower that bar.
Which proves my point.
Or, to paraphrase, Engineering is essential, but not necessarily required.
-
I have long thought that standard economic models have applicability to golf. The golf's goal is to minimize his score and makes decisions which can examined using models of expected probability and risk.
Andrew:
The problem with your theory of golf is the same as the problem with economics: the assumption that all the players always act rationally is just completely wrong.
Hardly anyone really understands the odds involved in their risk-taking. In golf, 98% of players over-estimate their ability and take more risks than would be rational. In economic spheres, systemic risk is underrated or ignored, even though it produces catastrophic results once every few years. Of course, the same people build beach houses in Florida, knowing they will have made enough money in between disasters to rebuild everything, with the help of low-interest government disaster loans.
P.S. One of my interns studied game theory; I'd guess that has some application to golf design, too, but you have to correct for the fact that 90% of people are not out there grinding to shoot their lowest score every time. They just want to have fun.
-
I have long thought that standard economic models have applicability to golf. The golf's goal is to minimize his score and makes decisions which can examined using models of expected probability and risk.
Andrew:
The problem with your theory of golf is the same as the problem with economics: the assumption that all the players always act rationally is just completely wrong.
Hardly anyone really understands the odds involved in their risk-taking. In golf, 98% of players over-estimate their ability and take more risks than would be rational. In economic spheres, systemic risk is underrated or ignored, even though it produces catastrophic results once every few years. Of course, the same people build beach houses in Florida, knowing they will have made enough money in between disasters to rebuild everything, with the help of low-interest government disaster loans.
P.S. One of my interns studied game theory; I'd guess that has some application to golf design, too, but you have to correct for the fact that 90% of people are not out there grinding to shoot their lowest score every time. They just want to have fun.
I imagine the ideal of the golfer who makes perfect decisions to minimize his score is a fantasy just as much as the ideal consumer. Game theory is a lot more applicable to a lot of economic decisions than the oversimplifications that economists make*, and probably to golfers as well.
I don't think the idea that not everyone wants to shoot the lowest possible score is a knock on using economic theory in golf. In Economics the ideal consumer wants to maximize utility, in golf I want to maximize fun. How does one measure fun? Well, it is subjective, how I play a shot to maximize fun may be different than you maximize fun. Likewise how to "best" spend an extra $1000 I have laying around to maximize utility is probably different from how you would spend it. So I guess the two subjects may be similar to the degree Andrew suggests, but not for the reasons he suggests...
* My dad earned his PhD in Economics from Berkeley and taught Economics for over 40 years, so I feel I know the subject well enough to criticize the "science's" failings.
-
I would love to see the results of a scientifically designed and administered study using ShotLink of the intentions, risk preferences and outcomes of a weighted randomized sample of all golfers (from McIlroy to Mr. and Mrs. Havercamp), which could develop and analyze a statistically valid data pool which also accounted for the weather conditions of the day (temperature, humidity, wind strength and direction, etc.) and the mental and physical health of each golfer (overall and on the day). It would be nice to have this study conducted over real golf courses (whose relevant variables would also be determined and calibrated) but I'll settle for a driving range while the kinks in the system are unkinked.
Not completely sure what I would do with the data if I were an Archie, but it would be fun to see.
-
I would love to see the results of a scientifically designed and administered study using ShotLink of the intentions, risk preferences and outcomes of a weighted randomized sample of all golfers (from McIlroy to Mr. and Mrs. Havercamp), which could develop and analyze a statistically valid data pool which also accounted for the weather conditions of the day (temperature, humidity, wind strength and direction, etc.) and the mental and physical health of each golfer (overall and on the day). It would be nice to have this study conducted over real golf courses (whose relevant variables would also be determined and calibrated) but I'll settle for a driving range while the kinks in the system are unkinked.
Not completely sure what I would do with the data if I were an Archie, but it would be fun to see.
Rich,
That is very much what I was alluding to above:
As with most sciences, we'd probably assume far too early that we had all the answers and remove individual interpretation from the process long before we were able to replace it with solid formulae. Actually, economics is a perfect example of just that!
-
I have long thought that standard economic models have applicability to golf. The golf's goal is to minimize his score and makes decisions which can examined using models of expected probability and risk.
Andrew:
The problem with your theory of golf is the same as the problem with economics: the assumption that all the players always act rationally is just completely wrong.
Hardly anyone really understands the odds involved in their risk-taking. In golf, 98% of players over-estimate their ability and take more risks than would be rational..........
P.S. One of my interns studied game theory; I'd guess that has some application to golf design, too, but you have to correct for the fact that 90% of people are not out there grinding to shoot their lowest score every time. They just want to have fun.
TD, of course, that raised the question of who do you design for? I get the impression that most of design centers around what some tour pro (presumably more logical than most) might do if he played. Or even, the 2% of good ams who might play the course.
I doubt most of us would design the course for the total unthinking player (at least most courses) preferring to have some strategy in there for the few who actually get it.
Another thought - I have always wondered what part of golf is strategy and what is skill. No matter how you cut it, skill comes out way on top, near the 90+% range. And thus, for the majority, why think? Either you hit the shot well or you don't?
-
Hi,
JB, on that last point...skill vs strategy...I've come to compare courses as ones that are either:
Match Play or Medal Courses; and that the essential difference between the two is that the latter more reward "skill" and the former more rewards "fortune."
Certainly this is broad, maybe even superficially so, as a definition.
But when I think of the classic GB&I links courses, early American "importation" of templates, and Scottish transplants designing courses on wild hillsides and other alien types of property, I think of courses and holes that are sometimes so audacious...in their judgment over blindness, or in their green contour, or in their "arcane" features...that they subject opponents or fellow competitors to starkly different "luck" ("fortune") outcomes for shots that are "similar"...thereby leveling off the differences, to some degree, in "skill" that exist between competitors or match opponents.
My point is you place me (10-11 HCP) and a plus player on a blind 150 yard Punchbowl approach and I've got a better chance to halve or win the hole than I do on the 17th at Sawgrass, or most things in between. The more the course is laden with such features, blindness...wild kicks near good spots...nasty little pots that suck up otherwise good shots...huge green shoulders...the more that better player and I will come together... the more the course requires "skill-sets" (like prodigious driving, first class wedge and sand play) and does so with intimidating penalty, the more the course favors the better player.
Because the game originated in match play, and holes/courses were "discovered" in an effort to fit a match purpose, I think that the further and further we have gone from those origins (naturally so - I'm not judging good or bad here), the more that the elicitation of skill has evolved into the paradigm goal for good and/or championship architecture.
I guess I'm saying that at one time, very far back in the game's origins, the course (or hole, or feature) itself was more like the modern handicap stroke...that make everyday golf enjoyable between people of divergent skill...
What would be the point of playing with a person who's far better or far worse than you, and known to be so ahead of time? For camaraderie, perhaps, but in terms of the execution of a game itself...I think the "unfair," (now) "arcane" features of the older "match" style of architecture performed this equalizing function on a fundamental basis
...But then, for many years of the 20th century, the ethos increasingly became "perfection," and "man-sized" courses that are made for skill... in predictability of playing grounds...and thus in a dozen meaningful ways we sought to serve the better player, because golf was thought to be best realized by the exploits of the elite players and the commercial adjuncts of all that comes with that.
So, my intermediate conclusion to the topical thread question is that GCA was MORE an Art, that we have tried to penetrate, understand and replicate with Science.
cheers
vk
-
Every game of golf is an act of art which is expressed over a canvas created by an architect, presented by a greenkeeper and subject to weather.
-
Don't we need to understand what science is first? It seems to me that we don't have agreement on that. FWIW I don't see either GCA or economics as a science. That said, I have a BA in Physics. My wife a BSc in Sociology and Criminology and my eldest son is soon to start studying for a BA in economics. Two of the other universities he had applied for offered a choice of BA or BSc! It would seem that even academia is unsure whether economics is an art or a science. I'm quite sure GCA is less a science than economics, so I think the answer to the OP is no.
-
No disrespect, Mark, but how does one get a BA (Bachelor of Arts) in Physics? My university never offered me the option of getting a BSc in English Literature, even though the dissecting of the poetry of TS Eliot or JV Cunnigham was far more difficult, at least for me, than solving differenential equations......
-
Rich,
Nearly every degree at my alma mater was a BA. Only very modern degrees gained a BSc. No doubt a tradition lost in the mists of time.
-
Mark
Your alma mater should never have subdued to the siren call of the BSc. If they had stood their ground, later maters might have followed you and stopped the concept of "science" in its tracks. We all have bits and pieces of knowledge that we access from time to time, with various degrees of interest and capabilities of integration, but nobody can claim to be a "scientist." IMO
Rich
-
Every game of golf is an act of art which is expressed over a canvas created by an architect, presented by a greenkeeper and subject to weather.
Very nice. And whether intended or not, an apt metaphor for life itself. Perhaps that explains why some find the game so deeply satisfying.
When I first got to the University of Toronto, it had just completed a process whereby it split the (very long standing) Department of Political Economy into two separate (and over the years increasingly different) departments, i.e. the Department of Poltical Science and the Department of Economics -- both departments in the years that followed treating "politics" and "economics" as two solitudes, one barely ever touching or even glacing over at the other. To me, both fields of study lost a great deal by the change; and both lost their moorings in some semblance of reality.
Reminds me of a line that I've forgotten so that I have to paraphrase very freely: every profession justifies its own existence. If a group of grammarians gathered to discuss that cause of World War II, they'd conclude it was because Chamberlain had misunderstood Hitler's grammar.
Peter
-
Somehow this debate reminds me of the old insulting phrase, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
More seriously, Rich's post relating golf to a work of art has sympathy from Tom Watson, who told me (and I am sure countless others) that he regarded a tournament round as a work of art, and one that started the day before with making his mental checklist, eating and sleeping well, practicing correctly, etc. Probably a bit more detailed than Rich had in mind.
And then, the natural corollary would be that in reality, we each do truly understand architecture in our own prism. There can be no one single understanding of golf course architecture.........maybe there is not even one by an individual golfer, either, since as noted conditions and conditioning both play a factor in every round.
Or maybe, there is the simplistic, if I enjoyed it, it must be good architecture?
-
For those interested in the "economics as a science" question, I highly recommend reading George Cooper's book Money, Blood and Revolution, published last year.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21598650-does-economics-need-rethink-revolutionary-fervour
-
The golf course architect needs to be an individual with 'many hats'. He/she must have knowledge of biology, planning, engineering, hydrology and psychology. A sentiment echoed by (perhaps) the greatest golf architect of all time, Dr. Alister MacKenzie, who wrote back in 1920, in his book Golf Architecture, that, “golf architecture is a new art closely allied to that of the artist or sculptor, but also necessitates a scientific knowledge of many other subjects”. However, as this thread is about process, it is MHO that scientific knowledge (now commonly referred to as evidence-based design) must help shape the process early on. Otherwise, golf course design would be reactionary instead of proactive.
-
Every game of golf is an act of art which is expressed over a canvas created by an architect, presented by a greenkeeper and subject to weather.
As well as...
... Gravity, Conservation of linear and angular momentum, more success when applying the Bernoulli principle, adjustment for aerodynamic drag, tweaking of moments of inertia...
That I can think of off the top of my head.
-
Every game of golf is an act of art which is expressed over a canvas created by an architect, presented by a greenkeeper and subject to weather.
As well as...
... Gravity, Conservation of linear and angular momentum, more success when applying the Bernoulli principle, adjustment for aerodynamic drag, tweaking of moments of inertia...
That I can think of off the top of my head.
Jonathan
Please keep those swing thoughts in your head if and when we ever meet and play together. And bring lots of dosh, too, as I I'm a bit short of funds at the moment....
-
Rich,
Will Zimbabwe Currency suffice? (You didn't specify relative value, only quantity!)
But, to the larger point, club equipment and ball manufacturers have embraced the study of the science behind the physics of the club/ball/course interaction. I'd go so far as to say to the chagrin and much teeth gnashing of more than a few folks on this board.
As I surmise it's out there to be delved into, why not look at the possible insights to be offered from the other side as a defense?
-
The golf course architect needs to be an individual with 'many hats'. He/she must have knowledge of biology, planning, engineering, hydrology and psychology. A sentiment echoed by (perhaps) the greatest golf architect of all time, Dr. Alister MacKenzie, who wrote back in 1920, in his book Golf Architecture, that, “golf architecture is a new art closely allied to that of the artist or sculptor, but also necessitates a scientific knowledge of many other subjects”. However, as this thread is about process, it is MHO that scientific knowledge (now commonly referred to as evidence-based design) must help shape the process early on. Otherwise, golf course design would be reactionary instead of proactive.
The modern day problem with Mac's sentiment is most architects will not wear all those hats and instead hand off much of that to specialists in each area. That fact is not talked about enough as while it may lead to highly functional golf courses with very nice grass, it also leads to a sort of assembly line mentality that can be the root of design compromises in an effort to get every functional detail right.
Serious question, how many of you have ever thought after a round, "boy that was a great round of golf because the golf course functioned so beautifully?" I'm not saying function doesn't matter, because obviously it does, but there needs to be a balance and modern day golf course designing and building is dominated by the specialists instead of the artists. Perfect functionality sure as hell isn't what stirs the soul and most architects would be much better served to attend to more of the functionality tasks themselves.
-
"Otherwise, golf course design would be reactionary instead of proactive".
Keith, this statement could lead to a whole other topic, but in reality, GCA is both. I have always felt that I do what I can with the approximate 90% reactionary design responses to allow myself the joy of the proactive 10% that is really fun. And in some cases, reactionary is proactive at the same time, as in Ross wondering what he might do with all the new capacity of bulldozers, or modern architects realizing that HDPE drains were cheap enough to use more extensively. Both changed the nature of design reactively and proactively.
Don,
I agree with you. Having been the guy who has had a hand in writing the "industry standard" design agreements, standard builders specs, etc. I see the trend of more specialists and don't particularly care for it either. At one point in writing the ASGCA sample agreements, I made the comment that we could easily have more pages saying what we won't do than saying what we would do. It didn't end up that way in the final draft, of course, but I had requests to specifically say the GCA won't design irrigation, cart paths, drainage. While I see irrigation design as being a separate component (although I used to do it myself) I fail to see how you can design a golf course without figuring out paths and drainage as you go and integrating it into the plan.
IMHO, too many designers rely on the contractor to figure out the little details, as well. Since I think I am better than most at those little details, I hate it when they do that, making others look better than they may really be.
There are compromises in every design, but as you say, making it functional and a good design is what we get paid the (formerly) big bucks for. In reality, I have encountered very few situations where I felt it was an absolute design compromise. Maybe I lean too much to the function side at times, but I know if I put a sand bunker between path and green, there will be worn spots on both sides. I know I am not changing human nature, so I usually figure a way to move the bunker to a more functional location, knowing there are many ways a bunker can make for a good design.
BTW, I have had golfers comment on a course draining well enhancing their enjoyment - no wet shoes, getting out on the course the minute rain stops, etc. So, they don't recognize it as part of the function, but as part of their enjoyment of the game, from their own prism. But, its functionality at its best. Like most of human nature, they usually comment when it negatively impacts them, LOL.
-
Don:
I could not agree with you more in regards to the modern issue of architects trapping themselves with “compromises in an effort to get every functional detail right”. My point was that an architect does not need to be a specialist in everything, but should have a broad knowledge in all things important so that this does not occur. If taken this way, I still feel Mac’s statement is more important than ever.
As an example of my thinking… while the painter does not need to understand the chemical properties and ingredients needed to make paint, he/she must know which colours to mix in order to achieve an intended result. Further, it is the best artists that can make multiples of these decisions and combine them across a canvas to form an enduring work of art. I see the art and science of golf architecture in the same light. I do not feel that information necessitates a lack of creativity, in fact I think it is likely the opposite.
In this I think we agree (?)
-
Jeff:
I agree that my statement: a) could likely start a new thread; and, b) is vague enough to be taken many ways!
Golf course architects are always reactionary to their sites, a process which continues throughout the design and construction phases. Equally, as you suggested, most architects are also proactive ensuring the best is being done for their clients. To clarify, I intended to state that golf architects should embrace the available information at the start of a project (proactive) as opposed to allowing the permit, engineering and environmental systems to make narrow-minded recommendations (reactionary).
-
Kieth,
I guess I agree in principle, but would also be hard pressed to find too many situations where a gca told the authorities to stuff it with their permit requirements. Based on experience, I would say that they are usually negotiated to some degree, but the biggest thing that affects golf design is the no touch wetlands, which you just can't get around any more. (Well, there are some ways, like buying wetland credits, where allowed, but not always available)
In all but a handful of dream sites and projects, it happens.
-
Serious question, how many of you have ever thought after a round, "boy that was a great round of golf because the golf course functioned so beautifully?" I'm not saying function doesn't matter, because obviously it does, but there needs to be a balance and modern day golf course designing and building is dominated by the specialists instead of the artists. Perfect functionality sure as hell isn't what stirs the soul and most architects would be much better served to attend to more of the functionality tasks themselves.
Serious answer. Not in so many "words", so to speak, but in visiting golf courses I do notice and appreciate things like well thought out flow of traffic between the parking, clubhouse, first (and/or ninth) tee, last green, etc. And I also notice when there are drainage basins that look out of place or sprinkler or drain grates that interfere with common lines of play. Not to mention cart paths can be total eyesores or not, depending on how much subtlety was employed in planning and executing them.
But your more important point is well taken. A boring golf course that functions nicely and is well thought out functionally is still a boring golf course. And if the course itself is fine enough, I will overlook almost everything else unless it impacts on the playing conditions (i.e. poorly done irrigation that leaves boggy spots or drainage that fails to drain properly in certain areas).
-
Brent,
I have told this story before, but I designed an unrealized project with John Fought a decade ago. When considering the design for what was to be the 14th green, he wanted a bunker placed right, which I said wouldn't work because it was in the traffic flow from the cart path, and which he hadn't considered. Then, I proposed a bunker at the back, which he noted would block walking traffic to the back tee, which I hadn't considered.
Not many folks realize the importance of good circulation on a golf course, but like paths and drainage, they usually can tell when it is not right.
I guess this illustrates that all kinds of functionality get considered at once with design. In college, we used to lament that professors would point out practical items that "ruined" our "pure design." But, please tell me what "pure design" is if absent functionality? Even some Art, like outdoor art, has practical considerations, like being weatherproof.
I just saw Keith's last sentence to Don, and agree. The old saying that necessity is the mother of invention is true in golf architecture, too. Sometimes, the greatest designs come from the most unique (seeming) limitations. After all, absent any unique site features, the tendency might be to design the same thing that worked at the last place, just like we tend to get into habits of brushing our teeth before dressing, or whatever.
-
Brent, your last comment speaks to "craft and detail" of design work. Important for sure.
In my simple mind, science has to do with an anticipated set of effects caused by controlling inputs.
The creative recognizes that the inputs are variable and sometimes random, thus the effect will be at some level a surprise (good or bad).
The strength of the Mac-Raynor-Banks template hole formulas are their familarity and their element of surprise, both at the same time.
-
Is Golf Course Architecture Just a Science We Can't Yet Quantify?
Yes.
We've just never explored the relationship between spatial appreciation and golf.
-
Well.
Today, I got a memorandum from the Colorado board about Grading Certifications and Grading Design Certifications. I checked, and there is no link on their website yet, but I imagine it will appear soon.
Anyway
Please be advised that the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers, and Professional Land Surveyors (“Board”) considers grading certifications and grading design statements that include language stating or implying that the grading design accurately reflects the design intent of an approved grading plan, that the grading will or will not cause storm water damage, or that the lot will drain adequately to constitute the practice of engineering.
As the design, evaluation, and analysis of grading and/or drainage plans are considered the practice of engineering, these plans should be prepared by an engineer utilizing data provided by a professional land surveyor. Preparing grading and drainage plans is not within the scope of the practice of land surveying. If a land surveyor makes a certification on a grading or drainage plan, it should be limited to determined elevations of land parcels and must not contain statements of engineering design, evaluation, or analysis.
An individual who, without being licensed as a Colorado professional engineer, prepares, signs, or seals such a grading design statement violates state statute and may be subject to legal action by the Board, including but not limited to a cease and desist order or injunction. Professional land surveyors who are not also licensed as a Colorado professional engineer are not authorized to engage in the practice of engineering.
The following is an example of a grading certificate or statement that may be signed or sealed by a person who is not a licensed professional engineer: “The grading for the lot shown hereon accurately reflects the design of the approved area grading plan prepared by [engineering firm].”
While I get that there is no mention of Golf Courses anywhere in that, I don't see it as a stretch to argue that the grading related to drainage could be interpreted as falling under their jurisdiction.
-
Andrew:
The problem with your theory of golf is the same as the problem with economics: the assumption that all the players always act rationally is just completely wrong.
Hardly anyone really understands the odds involved in their risk-taking. In golf, 98% of players over-estimate their ability and take more risks than would be rational. In economic spheres, systemic risk is underrated or ignored, even though it produces catastrophic results once every few years. Of course, the same people build beach houses in Florida, knowing they will have made enough money in between disasters to rebuild everything, with the help of low-interest government disaster loans.
P.S. One of my interns studied game theory; I'd guess that has some application to golf design, too, but you have to correct for the fact that 90% of people are not out there grinding to shoot their lowest score every time. They just want to have fun.
Tom,
I completely agree. One of my fundamental beliefs is that golfers behave incredibly irrationally on the golf course. I am working on a paper to be submitted for a behavioral economics workshop here at Harvard which looks at how golfers systematically behave irrationally and then, first, seeks to characterize the risk profiles of individual golf holes, then tries to identifies which kinds of hole induce players to take the most risk. I believe that these are the best kinds of holes. The quintessential example is 16 at Cypress Point. No score-minimizing golfer would ever attempt to go for the green, as evidenced by Ben Hogan's strategy for playing the hole. Most people still try and that's fun. This is a hole where the player's utility from the thrill of trying a stupid shot significantly outweighs the desire for a low score. These sorts of considerations can be accounted for in a risk model. (another good example is 12 at Barnbougle Dunes, I think you may have seen it)
Holes which provide a safe but boring option and an alluring option which is too tempting to pass up despite the relatively poor odds of success are the spice of good golf courses. I haven't made up my mind as to whether this sort of dilemma should be present to some extent on every hole. My goal is to develop a framework for assessing holes so that this risk-reward quality can be quantified.
I haven't spent enough time refining my ideas but I'll have time to do this in the course of writing this paper. I'll probably post it on GCA when it is finished.
ABM
-
GCA will never be a science in and of itself yet there is and will be science applied to the art of golf course design and build
-
At the risk of beating a dead horse, the NY Times is running an article entitled "Are Economists Overrated?"
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/09/are-economists-overrated?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
I like the description of economics as a "pseudo science," by two guys from Harvard no less! ;)