[Tim_Weiman]

To GCA Board Participants:


This post is in response to Michael Chadwick’s post yesterday which was in response to a recent article by Zachary Car wherein Car suggests that a collection of recents courses, including Sweetens Cove, Old Barnwell, Landman, Cabot Citrus Farms and the Tree Farm are “too big, too bold and too manufactured”.


Car’s assertion and Michael Chadwick’s post got me to thinking: what exactly is “too big, too bold and manufactured”?


I ask this question as someone who, in times past, has argued against the “golf technology arms race”. Essentially my logic has always been that the game of golf is the balance between player skill, technology and the playing field. Making everything bigger (longer) doesn’t really make it better, I have argued.


One experience (now twenty years ago) that influenced my thinking was visiting the golf course I grew up playing: Pelham Country Club in Pelham Manor, NY. Specifically, I observed a new back tee that had been built up on a hill on #4.


As I sat there thinking about it with memories playing the hole and watching others (adults) play it fifty years before, the superintendent came up and asked what I was doing there. Busted for trespassing, I thought I better redirect the superintendent who seemed like he wanted me to me to leave. Thus, when he asked what I was doing there,I responded by saying “I’m trying to figure out why anyone would build that back tee”.


Of course he said the added length was necessary because it was too easy to reach the fairway, something that clearly wasn’t true in the 1960s.


Was this really progress, I thought. If so, why?


Which leads me back to the question: what is “too big, bold and too manufactured”?


Of the five courses Car cites Old Barnwell is the only one I have walked and played. Clearly, Old Barnwell is big and bold and has manufactured features.


But how do we determine a course has these features in excess?


For instance, Old Barnwell has hosted quite a few college teams. One team I followed was from Seton Hall. The course sure didn’t seem too big for them. All of the challenge appeared to be around the greens.


Then, too, I don’t recall anyone here arguing courses like NGLA or Chicago being “too manufactured”. If they aren’t, how would a modern course like Old Barnwell meet such a description?

[Sean_A]

I thought the Castle was overdone when I first played it, but not by the degree I was led to believe by reading comments. The course has been toned down a bit and is better for it, but I never thought the Castle was anything close to a 0.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

As for the “too big” assertion if a course has greens close to tees and the walk is reasonable/enjoyable I don’t know if that applies. It’s possible to have an intimate walk on a big scale property.

[Jason Thurman]

Let's not overindex on "too big." Sweetens Cove is quite compact, for example.


I think what Zachary Car is calling out is that we've seen a boom of "destination golf" that's built around a certain degree of audacity in design. A course like Landmand, for example, has a lot of classically inspired features that we widely accept as "good": a rugged naturalistic presentation full of Redans and Punchbowls and contour and half-par holes and greens inspired by Sitwell Park. It presents those things boldly and at a maybe-unprecedented scale. But it presents those features so boldly and so all-at-oncedly that it also lacks a certain timelessness, at least in Zachary's opinion. It feels as much tied to its specific era of the 2020s as an RTJ course built in the 1960s does.


This is probably just a natural byproduct of the proliferation of destination golf. I took a trip last year to play Lancaster and Manufacturers. I probably prefer both of those courses to Landmand. But if Manufacturers or Lancaster was opening today as a new resort course, I'm not sure they would get nearly the attention that Landmand received. They're practically perfect everyday playing grounds for the club golfer, but it seems there's not much buzz to be generated through subtle excellence in the current construction market.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Funny, When I think of "too big and bold" I think of people Like Pete Dye & Mike Strantz, the Cashen Course at Ballybunion or Yale, and Features like the Himalayas bunker at St. Georges or the Klondyke/Dell at Lahinch.

All built buy architects who have unfortunately passed. I would not say that big and bold is a new trend in the slightest. It might, if anything, had become under appreciated or under utilized for a long time and is now coming back into the popular spectrum.

Granted, It would seem that to tame the advantage of modern golf equipment subtle and nuanced don't seem to cut it anymore.

[Sean_A]

Funny, When I think of "too big and bold" I think of people Like Pete Dye & Mike Strantz, the Cashen Course at Ballybunion or Yale, and Features like the Himalayas bunker at St. Georges or the Klondyke/Dell at Lahinch.

All built buy architects who have unfortunately passed. I would not say that big and bold is a new trend in the slightest. It might, if anything, had become under appreciated or under utilized for a long time and is now coming back into the popular spectrum.

Granted, It would seem that to tame the advantage of modern golf equipment subtle and nuanced don't seem to cut it anymore.

Cashen is another a course I would suggest steps beyond the pale here and there. Same for Sandy Hills. Both in a negative way.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think too big, i.e., length, is a separate issue from too bold.


I remember playing PGA West with the late Bruce Borland, with the late Dick Nugent tagging along in the cart.  While Nugent loved a ring of mounds behind the green, and he wondered why Pete had shaped many layers of mounds well behind the green and out of play.  Why would he do that?  As Bruce answered, "Because it looks fantastic!"


The short answer is no.....not on one course, where it might be just the ticket to the best use of the site, but since so many were doing their versions of maximalist shaping, the entire collection of bold courses convinced some that in total, yes you can be too bold, just like you can be too subtle, or even too anything.


In general, I don't think the larger scale of most modern courses is surprising.  Two lane roads aren't built anymore.....cities, parks, you name it all have bigger scale than those of a century ago, and designers in all those fields were simply responding to problems with the earlier designs that didn't keep up with the times, i.e. we definitely need bigger greens and tees now for traffic, just as we need 4 lanes in the road.


The "earth as putty" mode in gca had to be explored, and was found to NOT be the answer to all things, just as any design feature would be.

[John Foley]

IMO it comes down to visual noise & playability.

Landman to me (haven't been there in person) looks cool, but those slopes and green sizes it's just screams at me. Cabot Citrus looks to me like there's a rock concert going on, senses overwhelmed. First time I played Sweetens loved it. In successive plays the 1st & 2nd greens are too much while the 4th green is sublime. The drivable 5th is a wonderful could play it all day long.  The 8th green is just too much. The two pin flags per hole, just don't get it.

On the other side I just got back from Streamsong and the Black while crazy greens doesn't feel like I'm getting screamed it. While the 4th is a bit noisy I can take it the rest of the flow and the greens seem to work well to not overwhelm.

Hope this makes sense.

[Tom_Doak]

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so, too, are "too big" and "too bold".  [And I do agree with Jeff that they should be separated, although nowadays "too big" is usually more about width than about length.]


There will always be cheerleaders for an architect who goes to extremes, in the short term, but does that style get old quickly?  Mike Strantz and Jim Engh were both named the "Architect of the Year," while I don't think Bill Coore ever was; nor was I, even though I've had some pretty good years in the last 25.



Personally, Streamsong Black fell into the "too big and too bold" category for me; it felt like it was trying hard to outdo the other two courses.  There's a lot of that going on right now.

[Matt Schoolfield]

This topic brings me back to my thought on Howard Moskowitz and targeting clusters of bliss points.

However, I do wish we had some kind of length-normalized system of rating courses difficulty. I think the language of challenge is limited by the way we present our courses with rating/slope. I think it's quite obvious that many folks here are seeking shorter, but challenging courses, but right now there isn't and easy way to identify them.

[Ben Hollerbach]

This topic brings me back to my thought on Howard Moskowitz and targeting clusters of bliss points.

However, I do wish we had some kind of length-normalized system of rating courses difficulty. I think the language of challenge is limited by the way we present our courses with rating/slope. I think it's quite obvious that many folks here are seeking shorter, but challenging courses, but right now there isn't and easy way to identify them.

The first step in rating a hole/golf course for an official course rating is determining the effective playing length based on the measurement of each hole, adjusted for the impact of roll, wind, elevation changes, altitude, dog-legs and forced lay ups.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think too big, i.e., length, is a separate issue from too bold.


I remember playing PGA West with the late Bruce Borland, with the late Dick Nugent tagging along in the cart.  While Nugent loved a ring of mounds behind the green, and he wondered why Pete had shaped many layers of mounds well behind the green and out of play.  Why would he do that?  As Bruce answered, "Because it looks fantastic!"


The short answer is no.....not on one course, where it might be just the ticket to the best use of the site, but since so many were doing their versions of maximalist shaping, the entire collection of bold courses convinced some that in total, yes you can be too bold, just like you can be too subtle, or even too anything.


In general, I don't think the larger scale of most modern courses is surprising.  Two lane roads aren't built anymore.....cities, parks, you name it all have bigger scale than those of a century ago, and designers in all those fields were simply responding to problems with the earlier designs that didn't keep up with the times, i.e. we definitely need bigger greens and tees now for traffic, just as we need 4 lanes in the road.


The "earth as putty" mode in gca had to be explored, and was found to NOT be the answer to all things, just as any design feature would be.

The other thing was that at PGA West, almost every hole had some of that over the top shaping.  Most golfers I know think that it would have been more effective if a few holes gave a relative respite from all the grandiosity.  Put another way, one way to make big and bold shaping stand out is to only do it some of the time, even on one course.  Otherwise, anything will become repetitious and have less visual effect.  That said, I wonder how a course with 18 ocean front holes would become somehow boring, but that is a case of nature supplying the thrills, rather than the man made earth sculptures.


Another question this brings up - Is this generation making the same mistake much of mine did?, i.e., over designing for their own awards and publicity and not for the golfer who pays the bills?

[Matt Schoolfield]

The first step in rating a hole/golf course for an official course rating is determining the effective playing length based on the measurement of each hole, adjusted for the impact of roll, wind, elevation changes, altitude, dog-legs and forced lay ups.

I certainly understand that length is included in the rating.

My point is only that it's not communicated clearly in any of the numbers without doing a non-negligible amount of math. The bogey rating is very useful at identifying a type of difficulty, but it doesn't account for the type of bogey golfer playing. An old pro who can it the fairway with their 180 yard drive on every hole is a different type of bogey golfer than the young man hitting it 300 yards into the rough. Obviously this has been studied with talk of Steady Eddie and Wild Willie, but whether the course is suited to a Steady Eddie (Bethpage front tees) or Wild Willie (Gamble Sands back tees) isn't communicated concisely by any standard statistic.

[Ben Hollerbach]

The first step in rating a hole/golf course for an official course rating is determining the effective playing length based on the measurement of each hole, adjusted for the impact of roll, wind, elevation changes, altitude, dog-legs and forced lay ups.

I certainly understand that length is included in the rating.

My point is only that it's not communicated clearly in any of the numbers without doing a non-negligible amount of math. The bogey rating is very useful at identifying a type of difficulty, but it doesn't account for the type of bogey golfer playing. An old pro who can it the fairway with their 180 yard drive on every hole is a different type of bogey golfer than the young man hitting it 300 yards into the rough. Obviously this has been studied with talk of Steady Eddie and Wild Willie, but whether the course is suited to a Steady Eddie (Bethpage front tees) or Wild Willie (Gamble Sands back tees) isn't communicated concisely by any standard statistic.

Considering there are no standard types of players, and players can be of the same measure handicap level with dramatically varied skill sets, I would think an evaluation of length and course rating is a pretty effective way to normalize length to as related to course difficulty.

It seems pretty straightforward to compare a 6,200 yard course with a rating of 74.2 to a 6,800 yard course with a rating of 70.4. Clearly the additional length of course B is not making it play harder than course A.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Considering there are no standard types of players, and players can be of the same measure handicap level with dramatically varied skill sets, I would think an evaluation of length and course rating is a pretty effective way to normalize length to as related to course difficulty.

It seems pretty straightforward to compare a 6,200 yard course with a rating of 74.2 to a 6,800 yard course with a rating of 70.4. Clearly the additional length of course B is not making it play harder than course A.

Your approach may be useful for a scratch player, but it does not incorporate slope. Higher slope courses are generally considered "more challenging" because they are more punishing of mistakes. The rate of punishment of mistakes is barely measured by slope (adding convexity would be a big benefit to golf math nerds), but it's extremely important in understanding what to expect from a course.

Bethpage Black (white): 74.2/148/6684
Gamble Sands (metal): 73.4/120/7227

Here we see two courses with similar course ratings. Bethpage is a bit shorter, but we know here that Bethpage is going to play wildly more challenging for the vast majority of people because the difference in slope is dramatic. It's very obvious here that, all things being equal, Steady Eddies should outperform Wild Willies at Bethpage. We should also expect the Wild Willies to outperform the Steady Eddies at Gamble Sands because the low slope suggests it is much less punishing of mistakes.

I'm just saying that a standard statistic to normalize this distinction could really help suss out the "bigness" in "what is too big."

[Ira Fishman]

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so, too, are "too big" and "too bold".  [And I do agree with Jeff that they should be separated, although nowadays "too big" is usually more about width than about length.]


There will always be cheerleaders for an architect who goes to extremes, in the short term, but does that style get old quickly?  Mike Strantz and Jim Engh were both named the "Architect of the Year," while I don't think Bill Coore ever was; nor was I, even though I've had some pretty good years in the last 25.



Personally, Streamsong Black fell into the "too big and too bold" category for me; it felt like it was trying hard to outdo the other two courses.  There's a lot of that going on right now.

I don’t care about big, bold, manufactured, or whatever term might apply so long as the golf is not compromised to suit the architect’s presentation of aesthetics. I have not played some of the named recent courses, but I did find the River Course at Kohler to be a terrific GOLF course even though Mr. Dye went big, bold, and manufactured. On the other hand, I thought that PH4 required some off-putting shots. Primland is big and bold but it works because it fits the land and is not gimmicky. The same is true of Cog Hill 4 when I played it regularly 40 years ago. SS Black raises an interesting question. The golf shots it requires make sense, yet the routing seemed disjointed. So good “shot values” versus a coherent routing?


Ira

[Tim_Weiman]

Ira,


I loved the River course. Definitely not “too big, bold or manufactured”. Just a lot fun in my experience.

[Kalen Braley]

Jim Engh courses came to mind when I first saw this question.

They have certainly been criticized on GCA thru the years, and much of it is valid to be honest.   Yes he uses templates a lot, as do other architects, but in those cases they are often celebrated and studied, instead of being used as a negative in his case.

At the end of the day his courses are generally a ton of fun to play, with plenty of exhilarating shots...and that's good enough for me.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Considering there are no standard types of players, and players can be of the same measure handicap level with dramatically varied skill sets, I would think an evaluation of length and course rating is a pretty effective way to normalize length to as related to course difficulty.

It seems pretty straightforward to compare a 6,200 yard course with a rating of 74.2 to a 6,800 yard course with a rating of 70.4. Clearly the additional length of course B is not making it play harder than course A.

Your approach may be useful for a scratch player, but it does not incorporate slope. Higher slope courses are generally considered "more challenging" because they are more punishing of mistakes. The rate of punishment of mistakes is barely measured by slope (adding convexity would be a big benefit to golf math nerds), but it's extremely important in understanding what to expect from a course.

Bethpage Black (white): 74.2/148/6684
Gamble Sands (metal): 73.4/120/7227

Here we see two courses with similar course ratings. Bethpage is a bit shorter, but we know here that Bethpage is going to play wildly more challenging for the vast majority of people because the difference in slope is dramatic. It's very obvious here that, all things being equal, Steady Eddies should outperform Wild Willies at Bethpage. We should also expect the Wild Willies to outperform the Steady Eddies at Gamble Sands because the low slope suggests it is much less punishing of mistakes.

I'm just saying that a standard statistic to normalize this distinction could really help suss out the "bigness" in "what is too big."

.
Matt,


It would appear you're missing the trees through the forest on this one.


As you illustrated with your example, there are great metrics already in place that can be easily used to evaluate the expected difficulty of a course across a wide range of criteria. But where you see a shortcoming, in a lack of an all encompassing singular rating, I see its strength. Players don't fit into defined categories of skill and ability. They all see the game differently and have different preferences towards the challenge it presents to them. Through the use of the current metrics a player can already make a quick assessment of a course to determine its relative difficulty to them. That is more than enough


And yes, while there are 3 numbers; Yardage, Slope, and Rating; you really only need 2 of the 3. To use your example, It would be understood that Bethpage Black, with a rating of 74.2 and a distance of 6684, would have to have a higher slope when compared to a 7227 yard Gamble Sands with a similar rating. Because all 3 numbers work in concert with each other, If you only know 2 you can always derive the relative difference of the 3rd when doing a course comparison.

I would also disagree that Rating is a value only for Scratch players. For many to most, the value of Slope is ambiguous and the benchmark of 113 is unknown. Asking the average player to quantify slope into expected difficulty is not a task many could do accurately. In contrast while Rating does represent the expected score of a scratch player, anyone can easily compare that number to the courses listed par to derive relative difficulty for a very good player, and if they know the yardage, can then easily apply that difficulty factor to their own game.


But fortunately, with the 3 current metrics, players can effectively pick and choose which ones they use to assess difficulty to them at a fairly accurate level. No complex calculations required.

[Matt Schoolfield]

And yes, while there are 3 numbers; Yardage, Slope, and Rating; you really only need 2 of the 3.

If you only know 2 you can always derive the relative difference of the 3rd when doing a course comparison.

Hmm, I don't think I'm following you here. If you could explain the reasoning, that would be very helpful. The effective length is one input to the course and bogey rating, but I don't understand how one could infer the bogey rating, and from that slope, from simply the course rating and length. Perhaps a minimum bound could be established, but beyond that, I don't follow.

I don't want to be too pedantic with the rest of the comment. I'm simply arguing that providing a weighting of where the course derives most of it slope (bogey rating), in addition the level of slope (bogey rating), people would have a clearer picture as to whether the course suited their needs. Breaking this down into driving, approach, and putting difficulties is probably more information than anyone really needs, but I think more information is better than less by default.

If we are talking about "course bigness" and "course boldness,"  I think having that information could create a clearer language to talk about what we mean. This would be especially effective for people who haven't chased down the canon of golf courses we, instead, must use to communicate these ideas by way of example. If all our "bold" course have extremely high topography and recoverability ratings, then I think it would be clearer what we mean.

[Don Mahaffey]

We are in an era of golf course design where the golf matters but the look of the golf course matters more. And since many up and comers come from design trees that preached art first and formost, it’s only natural that bigger, louder art seems the direction to take to build a practice.  And add in that most designers now are also shapers who have become expert constructors.  So we have great art and the ability to support it with great construction.  I think sometimes the golf itself is secondary as it feels like a great golf round is now about a great “experience”. I’ll take a firm and fast links type experience 10 times out of 10 over experiencing another great art form.

[Tim_Weiman]

We are in an era of golf course design where the golf matters but the look of the golf course matters more. And since many up and comers come from design trees that preached art first and formost, it’s only natural that bigger, louder art seems the direction to take to build a practice.  And add in that most designers now are also shapers who have become expert constructors.  So we have great art and the ability to support it with great construction.  I think sometimes the golf itself is secondary as it feels like a great golf round is now about a great “experience”. I’ll take a firm and fast links type experience 10 times out of 10 over experiencing another great art form.

Don,


I’m curious about your view: what is “too big, bold and manufactured”?

[Tom_Doak]

We are in an era of golf course design where the golf matters but the look of the golf course matters more. And since many up and comers come from design trees that preached art first and formost, it’s only natural that bigger, louder art seems the direction to take to build a practice.

Do you really think that Bill Coore or I preached art first and foremost?  The golf is always first and foremost for us - that’s our role in the process.  The art has been the associates’ job, but if they go off without us it is their responsibility to get the golf right first.  And that is exactly the transition that some will be successful at, but most will not.

[Ben Sims]

This thread is so good.


Tim, this is a very difficult question. For every “too much” on a modern design, I can probably come up with something pretty big/severe/manufactured on a beloved older design.


I asked a bit tongue in cheek what Tom Simpson might say about some of the American classics where it’s clearly not very natural or minimalist. Tom D replied that of the courses I listed, Simpson would probably approve of Garden City the most. Having never been there, I’d have no reason to debate. But from an aerial, looking at the third hole alone, I’ve rarely seen a more bold and fascinating bunkering of a hole.


I say that to say this—to answer your question—I have no idea.

[Tim_Weiman]

This thread is so good.


Tim, this is a very difficult question. For every “too much” on a modern design, I can probably come up with something pretty big/severe/manufactured on a beloved older design.


I asked a bit tongue in cheek what Tom Simpson might say about some of the American classics where it’s clearly not very natural or minimalist. Tom D replied that of the courses I listed, Simpson would probably approve of Garden City the most. Having never been there, I’d have no reason to debate. But from an aerial, looking at the third hole alone, I’ve rarely seen a more bold and fascinating bunkering of a hole.


I say that to say this—to answer your question—I have no idea.

Ben,


I had the good fortune to play Garden City with Pat Mucci and Tommy Naccarato. That was probably twenty years ago, but I trust my memory enough to say the course was not too big, bold or manufactured.


Honestly, I don’t have a clear answer either. I need to see Tree Farm so I’m at least familiar with two of the courses Zachary Car cited, but based on drone footage it didn’t strike me as “too big, bold and manufactured”.


Rather than taking a swipe at GCA participants and trying too hard to sound academic, Car would have done better to offer a definition of what “too big, bold and manufactured” means or just not used the phase in an article about golf architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()