Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tommy Williamsen on March 05, 2023, 06:03:37 PM
-
I invited a friend to Hidden Creek in NJ. Before we played, I mentioned that HC was subtly demanding and not full of eye candy. After the round, he noted that it wasn’t subtle; it was boring. He played Ballyhack most of the time. There is nothing subtle about that course. It is full of thrilling forced carries etc. After I hit him in the mouth, I thought that sometimes subtle might be a polite way of saying boring.
That said, I don't think for a minute that HC is boring.
Is there room for subtle in the modern game?
-
I invited a friend to Hidden Creek in NJ. Before we played, I mentioned that HC was subtly demanding and not full of eye candy. After the round, he noted that it wasn’t subtle; it was boring. He played Ballyhack most of the time. There is nothing subtle about that course. It is full of thrilling forced carries etc. After I hit him in the mouth, I thought that sometimes subtle might be a polite way of saying boring.
That said, I don't think for a minute that HC is boring.
Is there room for subtle in the modern game?
There is room for subtle, but it's going to fly right over most golfers' heads, and it's unlikely to attract much attention.
-
I was very disappointed with Hidden Creek when I first played it.
Two or three subsequent plays and it is one of the only courses I've ever changed my initial rating more than one point after playing it again. Actually, it may the only one I can think of.
-
Subtle interspersed with dramatic, or vice versa. A whole course of either isn’t likely to capture your intrigue. Also, music…..
-
I think HC eats Galloway’s lunch. That said, you can insult a person’s wife before you can insult his golf course.
-
Subtle is a polite way of saying boring for someone who doesn't appreciate subtlety. The course that probably produces that difference of opinion most would have to be The Old Course.
I'm growing more interested in seeking out courses that straddle that line, to test my own eye and biases. Courses that may in fact be underrated throughout rater panels because their land may be more muted and their designs not making deliberate overtures to dramatic flair. But that means nothing when it comes to strategy. Off the cuff US ideas I haven't yet played include the Loop, Austin Golf Club, Trinity Forest, Wolf Point, Brambles, Old Elm. I'd like to hear more that might fit the bill from others.
Those courses strike me not as places where the design might be boring, but where the design tests how much you as a player failed to see. Or, put in another way, how much of a boring golfer you yourself are.
-
The Loop's land is subtle, the bunkers are muted, the greens are neither. I don't think of TOC as subtle. The land varies from flat to rumpled, there are loads of bunkers and the greens are huge...sometimes seriously contoured. Perhaps the blindness makes you think its subtle?
Ciao
-
I don't think of TOC as subtle. The land varies from flat to rumpled, there are loads of bunkers and the greens are huge...sometimes seriously contoured. Perhaps the blindness makes you think its subtle?
Couldn't agree more. TOC is far from subtle. The brilliance of the greens and scale of the bunkering are obvious to almost anyone. The land is, on a large scale, pretty flat. But subtle? Nah.
-
Subtleness- The property of being subtle, of avoiding brute force and instead being clever or skillful.
I like subtle. And IMHO, it is often much more difficult to design. And IMHO, it also makes golfers think they can come back and score better than that round because they never realized the subtleness.
-
Sean, Mark, I'm using TOC as a reference, perhaps the most contentious reference, for the dynamic brought up by Tommy with regard to the opinion indicated by his friend. I can't think of another more brilliant course that likely underwhelms as many paying tour guide players who walk off finding it overrated, undramatic, dull, and boring. For a great many of individuals who do not share your perspective--and the consensus on this discussion group--TOC does prove to be "delicately complex and understated," "so delicate or precise so as to be difficult to describe or analyze." (Oxford definitions of subtle).
With regard to my earlier post, good courses that toe the line with being reviewed as boring is something I think should be considered more meaningfully and expanded upon, as architectural counterpoints to those like Mammoth Dunes or Landmand, because subtlety--perhaps more so than drama--can better expose golfers' points of views.
I'd particularly like to hear about more courses that may be considered boring but are in fact thoughtful and compelling courses.
-
When you tell someone that a course is subtle you assume they are too ignorant to see it.
-
There are 4 layers of golf course:
1. Full of feature and in your face
2. Full of feature but “of” the land
3. Subtle and full of interest
4. Subtle and bland
Courses that fall in to 2 or 3 are usually excellent, sometimes great.
Courses in 4 are rarely excellent.
Courses in 1 can frequently be excellent but are rarely great. There is also a subset of 1 which is “land full of feature but golf course detail bland”.
Here endeth my generalisation.
-
I invited a friend to Hidden Creek in NJ. Before we played, I mentioned that HC was subtly demanding and not full of eye candy. After the round, he noted that it wasn’t subtle; it was boring. He played Ballyhack most of the time. There is nothing subtle about that course. It is full of thrilling forced carries etc. After I hit him in the mouth, I thought that sometimes subtle might be a polite way of saying boring.
That said, I don't think for a minute that HC is boring.
Is there room for subtle in the modern game?
There is room for subtle, but it's going to fly right over most golfers' heads, and it's unlikely to attract much attention.
Tom, is it a coincidence that two of your most subtle courses, High Pointe and Beechtree, closed?
-
Tom, is it a coincidence that two of your most subtle courses, High Pointe and Beechtree, closed?
I don't think either course was particularly subtle. High Pointe was (is) quite a pretty piece of ground with lots of undulation and some difficult greens. Perhaps the front nine was more subtle because it lacked trees or flashy bunkers. Beechtree didn't have as difficult a set of greens, but it had quite a few memorable holes, although, again, more of them were on the back nine.
The reason they closed was that the owners of both courses got tired of running a marginal business.
-
Southern Pines renovation.... played only once and was disappointed at its lack of subtley. It is trying to upstage Mid Pines and Pine Needles.
-
I was very disappointed with Hidden Creek when I first played it.
Two or three subsequent plays and it is one of the only courses I've ever changed my initial rating more than one point after playing it again. Actually, it may the only one I can think of.
I’ve only played HC once, when it first opened. And while i don’t recall being excited to return, I knew multiple visits would be required to give it a fair assessment and appreciate its design. Your post proves the point. But many of these subtle courses don’t get the benefit of a repeat visit because, by definition, they don’t excite the first time. Tough balancing act for the architect and owner.
-
Sean, Mark, I'm using TOC as a reference, perhaps the most contentious reference, for the dynamic brought up by Tommy with regard to the opinion indicated by his friend. I can't think of another more brilliant course that likely underwhelms as many paying tour guide players who walk off finding it overrated, undramatic, dull, and boring. For a great many of individuals who do not share your perspective--and the consensus on this discussion group--TOC does prove to be "delicately complex and understated," "so delicate or precise so as to be difficult to describe or analyze." (Oxford definitions of subtle).
With regard to my earlier post, good courses that toe the line with being reviewed as boring is something I think should be considered more meaningfully and expanded upon, as architectural counterpoints to those like Mammoth Dunes or Landmand, because subtlety--perhaps more so than drama--can better expose golfers' points of views.
I'd particularly like to hear about more courses that may be considered boring but are in fact thoughtful and compelling courses.
I am struggling to think of subtle courses which are excellent or great. All the examples which come to mind are exposed as unsubtle when closer to the features. I can think of some subtle holes and features. For instance, greens running away from the fairway can still look subtle even after experiencing them. Single, seemingly harmless bunkers can sometimes seem subtle or even silly until the wind changes direction. But I am having a hard time with an entire course being subtle yet excellent. I thought of Huntercombe, but again, once closer to the features, one realises they are often not subtle. It's more a case of deception than subtlety. I think TOC largely fits this description.
Ciao
-
Through court order I have been ordered to stop drinking bourbon and enjoy wine. As I go though the process I don’t want to hear a wine is subtle. That sounds like I won’t get it to me.
-
I am struggling to think of subtle courses which are excellent or great. All the examples which come to mind are exposed as unsubtle when closer to the features. I can think of some subtle holes and features. For instance, greens running away from the fairway can still look subtle even after experiencing them. Single, seemingly harmless bunkers can sometimes seem subtle or even silly until the wind changes direction. But I am having a hard time with an entire course being subtle yet excellent. I thought of Huntercombe, but again, once closer to the features, one realises they are often not subtle. It's more a case of deception than subtlety. I think TOC largely fits this description.
Pinehurst #2 used to sometimes be described as subtle. Pete Dye had a great rant about that. "The first green has a bunker six feet deep on the left, and a bunch of convex rolls in short grass off to the right, and you call that subtle?"
-
I would not say that PH2 is subtle, but up the road Pine Needles fits the bill, particularly the green complexes.
For a links course, Brora actually strikes me as subtle overall.
Except for Number 8, St George’s Hill is subtle. A good example of Ally’s number 2 category.
Ira
-
This is an interesting conversation. Unfortunately we keep being told that our subtle suggestions aren't really all that subtle.
I wonder if we could switch the terminology from "subtlety" to "sophistry"? In politics, ethics, or public discourse, sophistry is pretty much always bad. But I wonder if architects could use it to good effect. A quick definition is: deceiving through fallacious arguments. Sophistry preys on "common sense", it's how you convince a little kid that a small pebble will float because it's lighter than a feather, that sort of thing.
I think some of Mackenzie's use of forced perspective could be considered sophistry. I can also conceive of other examples as well, I wonder if people have seen architecture that smacks of sophistry?
-
In my experience subtlety in general can have tremendous variability.
There is the kind described here, looking for it in great to excellent courses..
And then there is using it as justification to play the same boring track over and over again in claims of looking for it, but never to be found. This later portion irks me the most with one set of friends who basically play this card to travel no further than the local 2.5 DS muni and are unwilling to travel even a few hours away to try DS 7-9s...
-
Saying something is “subtle” is a perfect out if you don’t know what you are taking about. Especially if the person you are talking to doesn’t know shit either.
-
Another problem might be that many memberships seem to feel forced into making the course play tougher in order to defend its challenge to good players.
For example, years ago I might have described Seminole as subtle, because it was a course that a lot of good players seemed to dismiss as overrated when they first played it -- especially if the wind wasn't up. But the way they maintain Seminole now, with the greens super fast and right at the brink of a ball blowing off them and rolling forty yards back down a hill, I don't think very many players would fail to notice.[size=78%] [/size]
-
Saying something is “subtle” is a perfect out if you don’t know what you are taking about. Especially if the person you are talking to doesn’t know shit either.
I expect the subtleties of this conversation will be lost on you. ;)
-
There are 4 layers of golf course:
1. Full of feature and in your face
2. Full of feature but “of” the land
3. Subtle and full of interest
4. Subtle and bland
Courses that fall in to 2 or 3 are usually excellent, sometimes great.
Courses in 4 are rarely excellent.
Courses in 1 can frequently be excellent but are rarely great. There is also a subset of 1 which is “land full of feature but golf course detail bland”.
Here endeth my generalisation.
Expanding on above to give some examples, when I say "feature" I tend to mean built feature or at the very least designed feature. Bear in mind, I haven't actually seen 2 or 3 of the courses I am referring to below so don't take offence! Perception...:
Type 1: Mike Strantz, Whistling Straits, Sweetens Cove, Castle Course, Castle Stuart, Kingsley. Pete Dye.
Type 2: A lot of American Golden Age or modern minimalist courses. Pretenders in the modern age are slotting in to "Type 1" more and more often. Links like St. Patrick's, St. Enodoc, RCD to a degree. MacRaynor probably straddles 1 & 2 quite often.
Type 3: The Loop, Deal, Portmarnock, Dunbar, Muirfield (although the bunkers almost rule this out), TOC (although the greens and quirk almost rule this out), Royal Aberdeen, Hoylake, Carnoustie, Walton Heath. Woodhall Spa and Ganton straddle 2 & 3 because of bunkers alone. Otherwise they'd sit in here.
Type 4: Bundoran, King's Links, couple of third tier Heathland courses, couple of Eddie Hackett courses on less inspired land. Don't know the bland ones in the States.
-
Saying something is “subtle” is a perfect out if you don’t know what you are taking about. Especially if the person you are talking to doesn’t know shit either.
I expect the subtleties of this conversation will be lost on you. ;)
Exactly.
-
Is Muirfield "subtle". I guess for the purpose of this thread it is. It's relatively flat. It lacks striking land movement. The greens are not dramatic (and certainly not as dramatic as YOC). Some people find it boring as they hit and run and miss lunch. So maybe Muirfield is an example of a great course some people find boring.
-
Is Muirfield "subtle". I guess for the purpose of this thread it is. It's relatively flat. It lacks striking land movement. The greens are not dramatic (and certainly not as dramatic as YOC). Some people find it boring as they hit and run and miss lunch. So maybe Muirfield is an example of a great course some people find boring.
Interesting, but the bunkering is anything but subtle.
-
Is there a difference between “subtle “ and “ understated “? I find Hidden Creek to be understated. The features are there but spread out so that it’s not loud.
-
Pinehurst #2 used to sometimes be described as subtle. Pete Dye had a great rant about that. "The first green has a bunker six feet deep on the left, and a bunch of convex rolls in short grass off to the right, and you call that subtle?"
I would not say that PH2 is subtle, but up the road Pine Needles fits the bill, particularly the green complexes.For a links course, Brora actually strikes me as subtle overall.Except for Number 8, St George’s Hill is subtle. A good example of Ally’s number 2 category.
Ira
There's certainly a lot on Pinehurst no. 2 that isn't subtle i.e. left of 1 and 5, over the green on 3 or 8, the entire 15th green. But to me, much of what makes that course so great is subtle. It's the 1-2 foot rise along the right side of the 1st green and the small bumps right of it, the larger and smaller slopes around of the 2nd green, that the slopes around the 14th green become longer the deeper into the green you go, etc. And probably the main reason that people have called no. 2 subtle is that it isn't visually dramatic. So I still think of no. 2 as a subtle golf course even though there is a lot that isn't subtle.
Ira, I'd agree that St. George's Hill is a subtle golf course but I don't think I've ever read a good explanation of why people think that. To me, St. George's Hill is subtle because of how the slopes in the fairway influence driving. You want to lay up to the top of the hill on 12, hit a draw or hold close to the left side on 13 so your drive doesn't catch the slope and kick right toward the woods, carry the hump in the right side of the fairway on 17 so your drive doesn't kick left and leave you with a blind shot, etc. It's easy to miss all of that if you aren't playing close attention. More than any course I can think of, the holes seem to be designed around the slopes in the fairways and there's a real premium on figuring out how to account for these in your driving.
-
Pinehurst #2 used to sometimes be described as subtle. Pete Dye had a great rant about that. "The first green has a bunker six feet deep on the left, and a bunch of convex rolls in short grass off to the right, and you call that subtle?"
I would not say that PH2 is subtle, but up the road Pine Needles fits the bill, particularly the green complexes.For a links course, Brora actually strikes me as subtle overall.Except for Number 8, St George’s Hill is subtle. A good example of Ally’s number 2 category.
Ira
There's certainly a lot on Pinehurst no. 2 that isn't subtle i.e. left of 1 and 5, over the green on 3 or 8, the entire 15th green. But to me, much of what makes that course so great is subtle. It's the 1-2 foot rise along the right side of the 1st green and the small bumps right of it, the larger and smaller slopes around of the 2nd green, that the slopes around the 14th green become longer the deeper into the green you go, etc. And probably the main reason that people have called no. 2 subtle is that it isn't visually dramatic. So I still think of no. 2 as a subtle golf course even though there is a lot that isn't subtle.
Ira, I'd agree that St. George's Hill is a subtle golf course but I don't think I've ever read a good explanation of why people think that. To me, St. George's Hill is subtle because of how the slopes in the fairway influence driving. You want to lay up to the top of the hill on 12, hit a draw or hold close to the left side on 13 so your drive doesn't catch the slope and kick right toward the woods, carry the hump in the right side of the fairway on 17 so your drive doesn't kick left and leave you with a blind shot, etc. It's easy to miss all of that if you aren't playing close attention. More than any course I can think of, the holes seem to be designed around the slopes in the fairways and there's a real premium on figuring out how to account for these in your driving.
I think of St George's as much too hilly to be subtle.
Ciao
-
I think of St George's as much too hilly to be subtle.
Ciao
It's not that the property is subtle, it's that the way the holes are laid out over it to favor/punish different kinds of drives is.
-
I’ve played a course where John Lennon once lived and recently one where The Weekend lives. Both are as subtle as a cloud.
-
JK:
"Through court order I have been ordered to stop drinking bourbon and enjoy wine"
[/size]Wine is a great alternative to harder spirits and can spur on hours of conversation (like GCA) with others who "may always be incorrect, but never without an opinion" regarding wine subtilties.[/color]
[/size]Said order is from Mrs. JK, Dr. or His/Her Honor. Hopefully all is well with you medically.[/color]
[/size]BK
[/color]
[/size][/color]
-
Is Muirfield "subtle". I guess for the purpose of this thread it is. It's relatively flat. It lacks striking land movement. The greens are not dramatic (and certainly not as dramatic as YOC). Some people find it boring as they hit and run and miss lunch. So maybe Muirfield is an example of a great course some people find boring.
Muirfield is such an interesting litmus test for people in talking about architecture, in my experience. Even Ran misses some of its charms.
While the ground movement is surprisingly gentle for a true links -- because as Andrew Kirkaldy observed, it's only kind of a true links -- there is more tilt to the property than most people notice, which both comes into play and adds a lot of visual interest [it's why the views of the Firth of Forth from #2 and #12 among other holes are so good].
The set of greens is also excellent, which is the only reason it managed to get to a 10 on the Doak Scale. There are several of them that just seem to be laying on the ground [like #1 with its tilt away, or #9 with its pronounced left-to-right tilt, or #10 which is the subtlest of punchbowls]. But there are also several with really good internal contour, like 2 and 5 and 11 and 15. There is quite the variety to them without it being overwhelming.
And, the bunkering is not just challenging, it's also the most beautiful shaping and revetting work on any course I know.
If only the rough weren't so nasty it might be an 11. :)
-
Muirfield is such an interesting litmus test for people in talking about architecture, in my experience.
The above encapsulates why I think there's value to this thread and in Tommy's original question. Subtlety for me is not a negative descriptor for a golf course. By definition it possesses complexity and inscrutability, but the scale of its features, built or topographical, are more understated. If someone wants to use a different word, fine, but the primary point is that it's important to recognize the shared greatness of Muirfield or Pinehurst 2 in tandem with their meaningful differences to Oakmont or NGLA.
What I interpret in Tom's suggestion is that nuanced designs can be harder to appreciate than their more audacious counterparts, and I'd argue that undoubtedly factors into prevailing trends in modern design. It's why the ethos behind Brambles feels almost counterintuitive in comparison to Cabot St. Lucia or Te Arai South--and those are from the same firm no less!
Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.
Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.
-
I’ve had this conversation so many times without much purchase on here that I can’t bring myself to repeat it.
I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.
-
Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.
Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.
I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.
This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.
You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed. They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go. The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.
I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth. Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention. Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned. But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.
The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess. Of course, some people like excess. Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.
-
Sean's earlier depiction of The Loop and it subtelties is very much akin to Muirield in a number of ways. It's fairly straight forward in its approach, as what you see is pretty much what you get. While there's ample room to play from the tee, trouble lurks where you don't expect it. Though you never feel you're out of a hole when you do make a mistake, there are number of places you can't recover from if your ball ends up there. To score well you need to approach the greens from certain spots in the fairway and understand how the ball reacts on the ground near the green, as running the ball on to them is sometimes the best (and only) play. Like some who have played Muirfield and walked away unimpressed, there's a contingent of golfers that don't get what the big to do is about The Loop other than its a reversible course. They can't comprehend and appreciate its nuances, design subtleties and rustic beauty, where the Weiskopf course at Forest Dunes is more in their wheelhouse and what they're accustomed to seeing elsewhere. Lastly, much like Muirfield The Loop doesn't photograph particularly well from gound level, yet is visually impressive from above ground.
-
Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.
Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.
I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.
This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.
You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed. They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go. The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.
I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth. Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention. Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned. But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.
The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess. Of course, some people like excess. Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.
Excess is exactly what I think about Muirfield's bunkering...which imo is the single biggest definer of the course. To me the bunkering is not subtle at all. The bunkering is relentlessly in the golfer's face. The second biggest definer of the course is the rough, again relentlessly in the golfer's face. The subtle part of the design is the property and the greens.
Ciao
-
Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.
Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.
I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.
This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.
You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed. They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go. The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.
I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth. Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention. Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned. But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.
The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess. Of course, some people like excess. Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.
My comment was based on Michael’s last paragraph, not his choice of examples in the previous one.
Your comment about building greens to reduce the need for other features is exactly where I am coming from though. The point is not that features need to be tame or boring. It is that they need to be measured in their place on the golf course and not overdone in type or number. If a course has artistic greens that sit in an otherwise natural landscape, this “feels” right. I generally dislike visual overload when it has been designed / built.
EDIT to respond to Sean also:
Muirfield’s bunkering is far from excess. You can only say that for their number. They generally sit low in the landscape and are very artistically shaped without being in your face. Because they are the primary built features on the course, they provide consistency in an understated way. Their positioning adds to this.
-
Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.
Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.
I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.
This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.
You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed. They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go. The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.
I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth. Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention. Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned. But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.
The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess. Of course, some people like excess. Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.
My comment was based on Michael’s last paragraph, not his choice of examples in the previous one.
Your comment about building greens to reduce the need for other features is exactly where I am coming from though. The point is not that features need to be tame or boring. It is that they need to be measured in their place on the golf course and not overdone in type or number. If a course has artistic greens that sit in an otherwise natural landscape, this “feels” right. I generally dislike visual overload when it has been designed / built.
If it looks cool, I like designed visual features. I also like artistic greens set in a natural landscape. I don't feel any need or desire to choose or decide what is best or better. It depends on how well executed the work is. These two stark choices and everything else is a chance to add variety to design.
Ciao
-
I like designed visual features as well, Sean. I think many designers these days don’t know when to stop “adding”.
-
I like designed visual features as well, Sean. I think many designers these days don’t know when to stop “adding”.
That may be true. I don't see enough new designs to draw a reasonable conclusion. Although, I remember thinking the Castle Course was over cooked..not nearly to the degree some others thought, but ott. I would like to see it again. I have heard some say the Meadowbrook job was overcooked. I can see their points, but I am not bothered because its well executed. I have heard the same said about The Loop. I don't agree, but if folks don't like the concept of defending a course at the green as the primary feature of a course then it's problematic. Of course there is Tobacco Road. Sure, I can understand the complaints. Its in your face stuff. I like it, but in a reserved way...I don't think it's great. I am probably quite forgiving when it comes to whimsical architecture. I am much less forgiving about blatant test your game architecture...mainly because I think it's difficult to be really creative and produce test your game architecture. Augusta and TOC pass the test. But there can't be too many of these examples on the planet.
Ciao
-
The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot. Even though there are numerous features, they are not shouting out at you to be noticed.
It is the “look at me” school of architecture that I’m not a particular fan of.
-
The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot.
Careful, the No Laying Up team are about to have a conniption.
-
The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot. Even though there are numerous features, they are not shouting out at you to be noticed.
I agree. I think a decent number of naysayers may not be used to firm conditions. Although, some simply don't care about a reversible course. They want more interest in fairways.
Ciao
-
The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot.
Careful, the No Laying Up team are about to have a conniption.
LOL! From what I can recall TC was the only one of the guys who had issue with The Loop. I found it somewhat shocking considering the number of links courses in Scotland and Ireland he's played and raved about while filming for NLU and how many of your course designs he loves. He got off on the wrong foot that day and the course got in his head to the point he couldn't see past his own shitty golf. Had he played good I'm sure he'd have a different reaction. Of the four, Big Randy "got" The Loop and really enjoyed it.
-
I'm a fan of subtle. BUT if subtleness is not part of the strategy then it could often be described as bland. AND, I'm not sure the average golfer considers strategy.
-
Boring
-
8)
Hidden Creek is a nice walk in the park and an excellent golf course in many ways. So much of the difficulty is tied into the putting and mini contours on the greens, which I don't fancy that much. For that reason it doesn't come close to Galloway as the nicest course here at the Jersey Shore. Top tier yes , but Galloway stands out.
Perhaps the poster may have considered it boring because there is so little pressure on the tee ball.
-
Folks playing links course for the first time, especially if it's a particularly flat portion of links, have been heard to remark something along the lines of "There's nothing to aim at!". Too subtle? Boring?
atb
-
As far as links go, Troon for the most part is fairly flat especially the first and last six holes, but there are several preferred angles to play to (based on firmness and pin placements) that I think it moves it from boring to subtle.
I’ve not played Dornoch — is it subtle?
-
As far as links go, Troon for the most part is fairly flat especially the first and last six holes, but there are several preferred angles to play to (based on firmness and pin placements) that I think it moves it from boring to subtle.
I’ve not played Dornoch — is it subtle?
The wind at Troon has never been subtle when I was there! [And also, calling the 13th hole "flat" is a mind-bender.]
Dornoch has subtlety in its putting surfaces, but in general the course has quite a bit of movement and more elevation change than most links. The elevation changes also make it pretty, which is why Americans rate it higher than the Scots do.
-
Thanks Tom - my one round at Troon I’m guessing the wind was “average”, so it didn’t feel windy to us. And re the 13th maybe I got ahead of myself and was thinking a few holes beyond it, maybe just the last few finishing holes.
And good to know Dornoch has that much elevation change, I don’t see if from pictures much like folks say about ANGC, need a visit to confirm!
-
We feel what we feel. Someone’s subtle (and brilliant) is another person’s dull and uninteresting layout. We all react to the stimulation differently. The person who feels underwhelmed isn't wrong, or right, it's just how they feel. We all see the same things through different perceptions.
Food for thought: It's a far safer approach to do paint the entire canvas and clarify the composition, than it is to use fewer brush strokes and rely on the viewers ability to interpret your intent.
-
We feel what we feel. Someone’s subtle (and brilliant) is another person’s dull and uninteresting layout. We all react to the stimulation differently. The person who feels underwhelmed isn't wrong, or right, it's just how they feel. We all see the same things through different perceptions.
Food for thought: It's a far safer approach to do paint the entire canvas and clarify the composition, than it is to use fewer brush strokes and rely on the viewers ability to interpret your intent.
Except that when you paint the entire canvas, it is obvious that you are dealing with a creation rather than a natural landscape, no matter how good that painting is.
(Which of course gets back to your first point. That’s MY reaction and perception. Others may be different.)
For me, it doesn’t matter how skilled the designer and builder are, if they’ve touched the entire 150 / 200 / 300 acres that encompass the whole golf course, I’m going to feel like I’m playing in a created playground more than I’m going to feel part of nature. That perception is likely reduced as time moves on: Is a 100 year old created landscape still created or has it now become the natural landscape?
-
Golf within nature rather than golf supplanting nature?
atb