[Stewart Abramson]

For me, there's an upper bound on how big and bold a course can be.  If you can't walk it because it's too hilly or the holes are too far apart, then it's too much.

Isn't too hilly or holes too far apart more likely to be the result of a bad piece of land and/or a bad routing rather than the architect  going too big and bold?

Stewart,


That’s a good question and one that illustrates how complicated the entire issue can be.


Sticking with Yale’s 18th as an example, would we say the course is a bad piece of land or that a poor job was done on the routing?

Tim, I wouldn't say Yale is either of those things because assuming arguendo that the 18th is not a good hole ( which I don't concede), it's still only one hole. Taken as a whole, I couldn't say that Yale is not a good routing or a bad piece of land. I think a course is best  viewed as the sum of its parts and it would take more than one hole to conclude a parcel was not good for a golf course or poorly routed.


Would it have been possible to have a better routing? I don't know.  I'll leave it to smarter, more expert people to opine on whether it could. I do know it's one of my favorite courses as is.

[John Kirk]

For me, there's an upper bound on how big and bold a course can be.  If you can't walk it because it's too hilly or the holes are too far apart, then it's too much.

John,


I agree that is a reasonable definition. Ballybunion made changes to the original design of the Cashen mostly due to the difficulty of walking it. It was considered too much by many older members.

Hi Tim,

I offered the comment as a minimum requirement for satisfying the condition of "too big, too bold."  Beyond the basic minimum effort to play a round of golf, what constitutes "too big, too bold and too manufactured" is a matter of opinion and taste.  You know it when you see it and play it.  But if you can't walk it, then      it.

I like the naturalist style the best because it mimics nature and is therefore most logical and least jarring to my mind.  Other than that, an extreme design would be demoralizing if the shot requirements were too taxing or the results were too unpredictable.  It's great to have your mind fully engaged for every shot, with your mind able to envision a desired shot and then executing to the best of your ability.  More often than not, that process should be routine, with the player executing a shot without excessive thought and planning.

That's my best answer for today.

[John Kirk]

For me, there's an upper bound on how big and bold a course can be.  If you can't walk it because it's too hilly or the holes are too far apart, then it's too much.

Isn't too hilly or holes too far apart more likely to be the result of a bad piece of land and/or a bad routing rather than the architect  going too big and bold?

Hi Stewart,

Yes, I agree with that.  But the architect has a responsibility to route the course to be walkable, sometimes at the expense of a few extra dramatic shots.  If the land is so severe that a walkable routing can't be accomplished, then there's nothing that can be done.  Do you agree with that?

[Tim_Weiman]

For me, there's an upper bound on how big and bold a course can be.  If you can't walk it because it's too hilly or the holes are too far apart, then it's too much.

John,


I agree that is a reasonable definition. Ballybunion made changes to the original design of the Cashen mostly due to the difficulty of walking it. It was considered too much by many older members.

Hi Tim,

I offered the comment as a minimum requirement for satisfying the condition of "too big, too bold."  Beyond the basic minimum effort to play a round of golf, what constitutes "too big, too bold and too manufactured" is a matter of opinion and taste.  You know it when you see it and play it.  But if you can't walk it, then      it.

I like the naturalist style the best because it mimics nature and is therefore most logical and least jarring to my mind.  Other than that, an extreme design would be demoralizing if the shot requirements were too taxing or the results were too unpredictable.  It's great to have your mind fully engaged for every shot, with your mind able to envision a desired shot and then executing to the best of your ability.  More often than not, that process should be routine, with the player executing a shot without excessive thought and planning.

That's my best answer for today.

John,


For the sake of discussion, based on your golf travels, are there three courses that stand out for being “too big, too bold and too manufactured”?


Tim

[Tim_Weiman]

John Kirk,


Further to my question about examples of “too big…..”, I’m wondering if you are familiar with PGA West and, if so, whether you consider the hazards around #16 green as crossing the line to “too big…..”.


If you are familiar with this hole and do considered it “too big…..”, is that because:


A) you know it because you see it


or because


B) recovery from the left side bunker is just too difficult for most golfers


By the way, if memory serves, Tom Doak worked on PGA West early in his career. So, it would be interesting to hear Tom’s thoughts on whether this hole is “too big, too bold and too manufactured”.


Tim

[Stewart Abramson]

For me, there's an upper bound on how big and bold a course can be.  If you can't walk it because it's too hilly or the holes are too far apart, then it's too much.

Isn't too hilly or holes too far apart more likely to be the result of a bad piece of land and/or a bad routing rather than the architect  going too big and bold?

Hi Stewart,

Yes, I agree with that.  But the architect has a responsibility to route the course to be walkable, sometimes at the expense of a few extra dramatic shots.  If the land is so severe that a walkable routing can't be accomplished, then there's nothing that can be done.  Do you agree with that?

Hi John,
I don't think anyone could doubt that land can be so severe that a walkable routing can't be accomplished.


Regarding your other point, as much as you, I and others on this site may prefer walkable courses, I don't think an architect always has a responsibility to route a course to be walkable. If the client wants a course built on a mountainous site or as part of a real estate development where the available or designated land for golf holes precludes a walkable routing, isn't the architect's responsibility simply to design the best possible course possible within those limitations knowing  it won't be walkable, or not take the job. I think that's been discussed on other threads and I'm afraid we're taking this one off the "too big, bold and manufactured" topic

[Sean_A]

For me, there's an upper bound on how big and bold a course can be.  If you can't walk it because it's too hilly or the holes are too far apart, then it's too much.

Isn't too hilly or holes too far apart more likely to be the result of a bad piece of land and/or a bad routing rather than the architect  going too big and bold?

Hi Stewart,

Yes, I agree with that.  But the architect has a responsibility to route the course to be walkable, sometimes at the expense of a few extra dramatic shots.  If the land is so severe that a walkable routing can't be accomplished, then there's nothing that can be done.  Do you agree with that?

Hi John,
I don't think anyone could doubt that land can be so severe that a walkable routing can't be accomplished.


Regarding your other point, as much as you, I and others on this site may prefer walkable courses, I don't think an architect always has a responsibility to route a course to be walkable. If the client wants a course built on a mountainous site or as part of a real estate development where the available or designated land for golf holes precludes a walkable routing, isn't the architect's responsibility simply to design the best possible course possible within those limitations knowing  it won't be walkable, or not take the job. I think that's been discussed on other threads and I'm afraid we're taking this one off the "too big, bold and manufactured" topic

I agree about walking. Some jobs simply don’t allow for a reasonable walk. But I get John’s larger point that where a good walk is possible it should be delivered. The proviso is that it’s ok to deviate if the few holes in question really are exceptional. IMO an interesting tee should nearly always be on tap as a close walk from the previous green. I can understand some forward and back tees if it doesn’t get out of control because that will only encourage cart golf. The older I get the less tolerance I have for transition walks. Which of course means a good walk or walkable is not definable. I know when I play it.

Ciao

[John Kirk]

Hi John,
I don't think anyone could doubt that land can be so severe that a walkable routing can't be accomplished.


Regarding your other point, as much as you, I and others on this site may prefer walkable courses, I don't think an architect always has a responsibility to route a course to be walkable. If the client wants a course built on a mountainous site or as part of a real estate development where the available or designated land for golf holes precludes a walkable routing, isn't the architect's responsibility simply to design the best possible course possible within those limitations knowing  it won't be walkable, or not take the job. I think that's been discussed on other threads and I'm afraid we're taking this one off the "too big, bold and manufactured" topic

Hi Stewart,


I appreciate Sean A seconding my thoughts.

However, you make a good point and I am inclined to discontinue this part of the discussion.  I understand that the opening post and following discussion is focused on whether a course's design features are overcooked.

[John Kirk]

John,


For the sake of discussion, based on your golf travels, are there three courses that stand out for being “too big, too bold and too manufactured”?


Tim

Tim,

I ignored your question because I don't want to answer it.  I even have trouble thinking of ones I've played that are over the top designs.  I'm sort of done with publicly identifying places that I strongly dislike because the design is unwalkable or the design is "over manufactured."  Also, my travels generally avoided those kind of places. 

[Kalen Braley]

John,

I really appreciate your comments on this thread, they are thought provoking.  A few thoughts I had:

1)  How is walkability defined? A course that most could walk, or in the negative, one that most would choose not to play if a cart weren't available.  I'm guessing most golfers would find a course like Augusta National a difficult walk (and assuming it were not ANGC and they could regularly access it), I suspect most would take a cart when they played it.

2)  A course like Sanctuary I would certainly deem unwalkable, but in my one playing I found the course very interesting and fun to play, even if the difficulty of the terrain basically demanded the holes be built far apart with lots of up and down.  There is a similar course here in SLC with lots of neat and terrific shots, but also basically unwalkable.

3)  And then there are courses built in very hot climates where walking would be borderline dangerous, even if it were dead flat.

P.S.  On a side note, I'd be interested in the thoughts from those who have played, Lawsonia, Mammoth, and Landmand as Jason asked a few posts ago.  How do those compare relatively speaking in the big and bold category?  To me, (based on pictures and flyovers), Landman looks very compelling.

[Mark Pearce]

The two courses I have played that most struck me as "big and bold" are Yale and Lawsonia Links.  And I loved them both and would positively seek out more like them.

This is like if there was a thread on Restaurant Club Atlas with the same title, created after someone wrote an op-ed about how a recent trend of proliferation of burgers like the Octuple Bypass Burger at Heart Attack Grill might be going a little too far, and someone chimed in that they enjoy the Big Mac.


If you think Lawsonia is big and bold, wait until you see Mammoth Dunes. But even Mammoth looks pretty conventional next to Landmand.

Thank you for putting me in my place.  I'll remember not to express an opinion in future.

[Ben Malach]

The biggest thing this thread has taught me.


Is that even the most well traveled golfers. Can't differentiate between scale of site vs scale of features.


As a lot of the content since my last post has focused more on sites than actual features.

[Jason Thurman]

Mark, I apologize for the condescending tone. That wasn't my purpose. It's just to say - there's a big difference in what's become trendy in the last 10 years or so vs what has traditionally been sorta the upper-limit of drama within well-regarded courses.


I don't know how to feel about all that, really. I like Landmand very much at the end of the day. But I do think some of its biggest swings are misses (the punchbowl green on 10, the rollercoastering of the 15th), while I think it shines most brightly in some of its must subdued moments like the lovely 3rd and 9th.

[Tim_Weiman]

The biggest thing this thread has taught me.


Is that even the most well traveled golfers. Can't differentiate between scale of site vs scale of features.


As a lot of the content since my last post has focused more on sites than actual features.

Ben,


If you are familiar with PGA West, could you opine on whether the area around the 16th green crosses the line from big, bold and manufactured to “too big….)?


By the way, IMO, the analysis should focus on:


1) is the hazard left of the green too penal for too many golfers?
2) is the area right of the green generous enough to receive a less than perfect recovery from the left?
3) are the potential landing areas for the second shot of sufficient width?
4) are the potential landing areas for tee shots of sufficient width?
5) is the length of the hole from, say, the white tees, excessive for 10-15 HCP players?


Presumably, most here would agree that the scale of the PGA West site is not really an issue. Any questions really relate to features.

[John Kirk]

Hi Tim,

I forgot to answer your question about the deep greenside bunker on #16 PGA West Stadium.  I've played the course once, and have heard that the bunker in question is about 18-20 feet below the green's surface.  It's deep.


Because the course was specifically designed to be a tournament venue for the best golfers, I don't see this as being too demanding.  Besides, it's one of a kind and it would be a fun challenge to try and get out in one shot.

I think the features that are deemed "too big, too bold and/or too manufactured" are largely a matter of opinion and taste.  I've seen features that look overdone to me, or I dislike the shapes and contours.  Too many little bunkers right next to each other, unnatural mounding that does not look like the surrounding terrain, greens that are so complicated that they look like they don't fit.  The design strategy known as containment mounding, where golf holes are separated by man-made ridges, is too manufactured.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but many of us would agree what is excessive.

[Tim_Weiman]

Hi Tim,

I forgot to answer your question about the deep greenside bunker on #16 PGA West Stadium.  I've played the course once, and have heard that the bunker in question is about 18-20 feet below the green's surface.  It's deep.


Because the course was specifically designed to be a tournament venue for the best golfers, I don't see this as being too demanding.  Besides, it's one of a kind and it would be a fun challenge to try and get out in one shot.

I think the features that are deemed "too big, too bold and/or too manufactured" are largely a matter of opinion and taste.  I've seen features that look overdone to me, or I dislike the shapes and contours.  Too many little bunkers right next to each other, unnatural mounding that does not look like the surrounding terrain, greens that are so complicated that they look like they don't fit.  The design strategy known as containment mounding, where golf holes are separated by man-made ridges, is too manufactured.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but many of us would agree what is excessive.

John,


Thanks for your post. PGA West may have been designed with tournament play in mind, but I would suggest that whether it is “too bold….” should really be evaluated based on everyday play.


When I lived in LA I used to enjoy going out to Palm Springs and play the course. I was about an 8 HCP and my golfing buddy about a 12 HCP. We both loved the course and didn’t think it was too severe.


Regarding #16, I thought about the left side of green when I still on the tee. My thought was I need to hit a good but not too great a tee shot and good second shot to set up my approach to the green.


Honestly neither were too difficult. A pulled tee shot was really that penal and the fairway width 100-150 yards from the green was fairly generous.


So, sure, the hole is big, bold and obviously manufactured, but does it cross the line to being excessively so? Not in my experience.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()