[Sean_A]

Perhaps one reason the Hoylakes and Carnastys of this world have taken a bit of a knock in recent times may be due to them not being as well designed as some of the newcomers.  Today's best archies seem able to combine great design with great aesthetics.  It shouldn't be surprising that with what we know today, the money floating around, some of the available sites, and great talent, that better courses are being built.  Well, its not surprising to me.  What is surprising is that it has taken so many years to get to this stage after so many great archies paved what was a wide, smooth road.

Ciao

Whilst I agree with your comment about today's best architects combining great design with great aesthetics, I cannot agree with your first sentence. Some of these courses were built with a simpler design method and style, certainly. But why do I find myself enjoying rounds on the Carnousties of this world as much if not more than those courses with a lot more going on visually?

Ally

I can only speculate as you are really preaching to the choir (or soloist) in a way.  Not that I particularly think Carnasty is a course I would hold up in admiration, but I get where you are coming from.  I can only say why I enjoy some of the more basic courses.  Usually the older, more functionally oriented courses are more user friendly - something I greatly value.  But I come from very much the angle of "good enough".  Most of the time I don't want to pay extra for the extra frills which after a while really become old hat.  But a lot of people want more than that especially if travelling a long distance and incurring significant expense and who can blame them?  Today's golf world is much more about making money, attracting golfers etc and doing the things which can make that happen.  That wasn't nearly so much the case 100 years ago.

Ciao

[James Boon]

Eric,

Where is that 4th picture?

Mark,

  I'm sure Eric will correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like its looking back up the 17th fairway at Silloth from around 100 yards short of the green?

I think the 2nd picture is the 3rd at Deal. I've not got a clue on the others but I can make a few guesses knowing the photographer in question?  

Cheers,

James

[Mark Pearce]

James,

That's where I thought it was, I just didn't want to be wrong and look a fool.  Somehow I never realised quite what a wonderful fairway that was.  Perhaps through failing to hit it often enough.

[Eric Smith]

Eric,

Where is that 4th picture?

Mark,

  I'm sure Eric will correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like its looking back up the 17th fairway at Silloth from around 100 yards short of the green?

I think the 2nd picture is the 3rd at Deal. I've not got a clue on the others but I can make a few guesses knowing the photographer in question?  

Cheers,

James

You are both right (of course), it is the 17th at Silloth. I actually took the pic during a match with you, James. I'm looking now at the next frame where I've taken a picture of you taking a picture.

The first pic is looking back down the fairway on Streamsong Blue's 18th.

The second is looking back down the 3rd at Deal. Boony = 2/2.

The third pic is at May River (#12).

[Thomas Dai]

As to why some courses are less visually appealing, other than the location the Almighty provided, when yee olde courses were built designers/constructors didn't have access to big boys toys like bulldozers, scrapers, dump trucks and the like to play with so providing a limitation, especially if large scale funding wasn't available.

I wouldn't say that eye-candy is necessarily bad though. Eye-candy does have it's place, although perhaps to some who see beauty as lying within the holes, routing etc eye-candy is a 'less-good' variation. An alternative (and probably controversial) perspective would be that eye-candy courses provide a certain silver lining - because a proportion of golfers visit eye-candy courses instead of going to the more traditional (??'uglier'??) kinda courses thus freeing-up tee times elsewhere for enthusiasts of non-eye-candy golf.

BTW, the 7th at Burnham and Berrow is a splendid example of subtleness with that sly spine running the whole length of the hole plus continuing through the green itself.

All the best.

[Jeffrey Stein]

I couldn't agree more regarding the sublety of Burnham and Berrrow, the routing in particular.  The rhythm and flow of walking in and around the dunes, and then back into some pretty wild landforms enhances the total experience despite the lack of exposed sand in the dunes. If B&B were built in the modern day it would probably have way more exposed sand (depending on the architect) and superfluous bunkering...B&B is just a terrific example of a subtle and refined golf course that doesn't try to over-do it with visual distraction.  The natural green sites and use of small ground contours at B&B makes for interesting golf despite the flat ground.  Lost Farm in Tasmania would be a comparable example as the golf course moves in and out of huge dunes and flat ground (Barnbougle to a lesser extent although the course does seem to breath in and out of the dunes).

The best golf courses allow the golfer to meander through the round and find different levels of excitement and relaxation.  It sounds like eye candy has been tagged specifically to bunkering but it could also be different grasses, plant textures, and colors (i.e. exposed sand).

[Jeffrey Stein]

#10 Burnham and Berrow

How many architects could resist scratching a few bunkers into this hillside??

[Sean_A]

The best golf courses allow the golfer to meander through the round and find different levels of excitement and relaxation.  It sounds like eye candy has been tagged specifically to bunkering but it could also be different grasses, plant textures, and colors (i.e. exposed sand).

I referred to grass as well and was thinking of Worly with its monochrome green which makes the course not really shine very well in pix.  For plantings I mostly have issues with trees creating the green wall.  It is too often the case where there are so many trees that the lovely ones just blend in - a real shame that is especially when there are some great oaks etc about.  Of course, this isn't just a matter of eye candy, but still points to an area of importance for eye candy. 

Ciao 

[Lou_Duran]

So if I understand the majority on this site, eye candy is a bad word, relegating those of us who love drop dead big deep bunkers to the hall of shame and ignorance.

I hereby nominate myself as an honorary member of the Eye Candy Society.

Cary,

As president of the ECS, I hereby accept your nomination.  If you require verification of my bona fides, please contact Jeff Brauer; he was present when the famous Redanman installed me in the position for life after I came to Jeff's defense for his alleged use of "eye candy" and directional bunkers at his Cowboys course.  The honor, however, came at a considerable cost as Redanman simultaneously rescinded his invitation to play Pine Valley with him in the fall.  After several years of waiting for the call, I am beginning to think he was serious!  BTW, admittance to the ECS is your second favorite painting (just kidding, though I do admire your work).

Ally,

Those damned "rankers"!  Have you considered that those ill-informed folks might actually see a larger population of courses which include scale, boldness, and other things you might call "eye candy" IN ADDITION TO "subtlety"?

Jeffrey Stein,

I think that B & B is a wonderful course and look forward to playing it again, maybe next year.  But in your discussion of the routing, the rhythm and flow of the round, have you given any thought to what happens when the wind blows from the north at, say, 30-35 mph and you pile on a score of avg. double bogey on the first 8 holes (you can reverse the scenario).  Getting home quickly might be quite a relief!  I know, the wind doesn't always blow that hard, and who cares about the scorecard.  It is all about shot values, however one chooses to define them.    Out and in routings do have some issues; all courses do, even my beloved Cypress Point.  If the owners/members/customers have the money, what is wrong with "eye candy"?  Or is the suggestion that "eye candy" and subtlety/superior design principles are mutually exclusive?

It is curious how the unwashed crowds at famous museums are usually bursting out of the door.  Can beauty/"eye candy" not have function?  Is observation not participation?  Is appreciation of beauty not physical at some level?

As Tom Doak points out, there is a large increase in the number of golf course photographers (not that it doesn't have much to do with changes in the medium and channels of distribution- digital technology and the internet- as opposed to the unsophisticated tastes of the golfing masses with too much money in their pockets).  Beauty does sell.  Might we wish to take ourselves a little bit less seriously (to think that our sensibilities and discernment are somehow superior)?   After all, Golf is a big world.

[Niall C]

Thomas

You mention Turnberry as being "guilty" of being an eye candy course. While its located in a beautiful spot, you could hardly say the architect exploited the scenery to the full extent by creating backdrops/horizon greens etc such as Ally describes at Castle Stuart. At Castle Stuart (and Kingsbarns) the concern for creating views/vistas, or if you like eye candy, was built into the routing and wasn't just a case of window dressing in terms of planting/bunker styles.

I suspect its that kind of eye-candy that Ally is referring to.

Niall  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Lou - I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.

Eye candy and great golf are absolutely not mutually exclusive.... But courses with visual enhancements do provide a quicker "hit"... And we live in a quick hit society more so than we did 100 years ago.

[Jeffrey Stein]

Lou,

B&B is cool because of the overall experience exploring a really wild dunescape, without getting lost within them for all 18 holes.  When I went for the first time last year I expected to see more exposed sand, however the members are probably exercising a healthy amount of restraint due to the wind that you refer to!  Cruden Bay or Ballyneal would be a kind of opposite experience, where you are pretty much lost in awe of the towering dunes around you for most of the round.

At B&B there is a fantastic build up of anticipation as you move through the back nine and the golf course gets into the dunes again.  I love golf courses that can pair a dramatic landscape with the end of the round.  Cypress Point would perhaps be the ultimate example of this...


Or is the suggestion that "eye candy" and subtlety/superior design principles are mutually exclusive?

I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, a balance of the two in the appropriate setting exists at many golf courses.  I have definitely found myself critical of golf courses with too many bunkers, trees, bushes, visual clutter, etc but  I don't believe I've ever complained about a golf course being too subtle...what would that golf course look/play like??

[Lou_Duran]

Lou - I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.

Eye candy and great golf are absolutely not mutually exclusive.... But courses with visual enhancements do provide a quicker "hit"... And we live in a quick hit society more so than we did 100 years ago.

As a senior, I am naturally inclined to think that things are going to hell.  My more rational self, however, occasionally gets through and forces me to consider that perhaps things are evolving overall to the better.  In terms of gca, what is routinely available to me today is much superior to that of my early years in the game, the 1970s.

Rather than me "getting the wrong end of the stick", perhaps I am a bit more receptive to and respectful of the needs and desires of the golfing public.  Often times we get but a couple of minutes to make a good impression, whether we are selling a product or making a new acquaintance.   Golf is a visual game- probably an important reason why seaside and links courses have a leg up in the rankings.  What is being presented in the pejorative- "eye candy"- is actually something that's positive, an attempt to appeal to the golfer.  If it is a "quick hit", maybe it is a necessary one.  Unless you really do thing that great golf and eye candy are mutually exclusive.  It is more expensive to do both, no doubt about that, and perhaps that is the crux of the matter (and why there appears to be quite a bit of Fazio envy).

There are plenty of very smart, sophisticated blondes out there.  Some plain types may have interesting personalities, and, if that floats your boat, all the more power to you.  After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Lou - I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.

Eye candy and great golf are absolutely not mutually exclusive.... But courses with visual enhancements do provide a quicker "hit"... And we live in a quick hit society more so than we did 100 years ago.

As a senior, I am naturally inclined to think that things are going to hell.  My more rational self, however, occasionally gets through and forces me to consider that perhaps things are evolving overall to the better.  In terms of gca, what is routinely available to me today is much superior to that of my early years in the game, the 1970s.

Rather than me "getting the wrong end of the stick", perhaps I am a bit more receptive to and respectful of the needs and desires of the golfing public.  Often times we get but a couple of minutes to make a good impression, whether we are selling a product or making a new acquaintance.   Golf is a visual game- probably an important reason why seaside and links courses have a leg up in the rankings.  What is being presented in the pejorative- "eye candy"- is actually something that's positive, an attempt to appeal to the golfer.  If it is a "quick hit", maybe it is a necessary one.  Unless you really do thing that great golf and eye candy are mutually exclusive.  It is more expensive to do both, no doubt about that, and perhaps that is the crux of the matter (and why there appears to be quite a bit of Fazio envy).

There are plenty of very smart, sophisticated blondes out there.  Some plain types may have interesting personalities, and, if that floats your boat, all the more power to you.  After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Lou,

Eye Candy as I describe it is not being presented in the pejorative.

However, a golfer can be appealed to in more ways than one. He is just being appealed to in a more visual way than he once was.... And I wonder whether less visual courses are suffering for it...

And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...

Ally

[Thomas Dai]

And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...

Given the recent comments on another (long running) thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52763.msg1321958.html#new - would a certain new course just north of Aberdeen be an example of an eye-candified links?
All the best

[Ally Mcintosh]

And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...

Given the recent comments on another (long running) thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52763.msg1321958.html#new - would a certain new course just north of Aberdeen be an example of an eye-candified links?
All the best

D'you know, I'm not so sure Thomas...

I think many other architects would have gone to town on that site with the amount of visual features that could have been incorporated. I actually think the design is restrained... and also quite conservative...

[Patrick_Mucci]

And I do admittedly wonder whether the attraction of visual appeal is sometimes driving architects to include more where less would suit better...

Given the recent comments on another (long running) thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52763.msg1321958.html#new - would a certain new course just north of Aberdeen be an example of an eye-candified links?

ThomasDai,

I haven't played Trump's course, so I couldn't say.

Have you played it ?
If so, is it an "example of an eye-candified links" ?

If you haven't played it, why would you imply that that's what the course represents ?  

[Thomas Dai]

I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.
All the best.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.


I had a suspicion that you were a fraud and now it appears that you've proved me right.

P.S.   if you claim you don't read colored writing and larger than standard size print, why did you respond to a post with colored writing and larger than standard size print ?   

I guess it's just more evidence that you're a fraud and not to be taken at your word. .

[Paul Gray]

I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.


I had a suspicion that you were a fraud and now it appears that you've proved me right.

P.S.   if you claim you don't read colored writing and larger than standard size print, why did you respond to a post with colored writing and larger than standard size print ?

Because not reading it doesn't mean he can't see it!

And out.   

I guess it's just more evidence that you're a fraud and not to be taken at your word. .

[Patrick_Mucci]

I afraid I don't read coloured writing and larger than standard size print.


I had a suspicion that you were a fraud and now it appears that you've proved me right.

P.S.   if you claim you don't read colored writing and larger than standard size print, why did you respond to a post with colored writing and larger than standard size print ?

Because not reading it doesn't mean he can't see it!

And out.   

I guess it's just more evidence that you're a fraud and not to be taken at your word. .

Paul Gray,

You're hearby anointed with colossal moron status.

If he didn't read it and comprehend it, he wouldn't respond to it.

To help you out, think of Rene Descartes.

Since you've achieved colossal moron status, I'll give you more help.   "cogito ergo sum"

[Paul Gray]

I've tried Pat, God knows I've tried, to apply the principle to your remark, but there really is no coherent link. The existence of green ink was never in dispute.

Like Tom, I hereof do not respond to anything you may have to say in this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've tried Pat, God knows I've tried, to apply the principle to your remark, but there really is no coherent link. The existence of green ink was never in dispute.

Like Tom, I hereof do not respond to anything you may have to say in this thread.

That's why I anointed you with "colossal" moron status.

This is really funny.

Do you think I care ?

Do you really think I give a rat's ass as to whether or not you'll respond on this thread ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

From the Medinah No.1 thread:

Now, that bunker over the lake - that is eye candy. I have no idea whether it's Tom Doak or Bendelow who originally put it there and I'm not passing judgement on whether it's good or bad.

Increasingly we see many of our favourite architects putting carry-bunkers right in to the eye of play. In general, I like this a lot and it is a return to classic principles in my view where penal mixed with strategic in perfect harmony. It was always something near the top of my "to do" list when the right opportunity came along.

It is happening a lot though and Jeffrey's example of Burnham and Berrow above hammers it home even more... Said Jeffrey "How many architects could resist the temptation to scratch a few bunkers in to that hill".

It is undoubtedly eye candy as opposed to subtlety. Just so happens it's eye-candy of the type I'm a fan of...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

I was recently playing golf with a young man who was striking the ball rather well.

Then, we came to a par 4 hole with water right in front of the tee.
The water was non-threatening to any drive that he had hit the entire day.
While the carry requirement was decent, it wasn't overly challenging.

He hit a miserable pull hook.

I asked him why/how he hit his drive so poorly.

He said that the water bothered him and made him get defensive to the degree that he gripped his driver tighter, resulting in the pull hook.

I said, "but, the water wasn't even in play for you"

And he just said, it made me feel uncomfortable.

In the 40 years that I've been playing that hole from that particular tee, even into a good wind, the water never influenced my drive.

But, to some people, the signal sent to the eye has a substantive impact, one that alters their play.

So, while I might agree with your assessment of the double hazard pictured (water and bunker), to some, it will prove very effective at rattling their mind/game.

What may be "eye candy" to us, is a real and threatening feature to others, because it IS IN PLAY.

To me, "eye candy" tends to be removed from the field or corridor of play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()