[TEPaul]

As far as I can tell the evolution to "stategic" architecture from the old penal style happened on the inland courses with the placing of the bunker in the middle of the fairway on Woking's #4 by Paton and Low! Of course TOC and its strategic mysteries were always there but this is the first time, according to C&W, that the concept was translated into designs of other courses, first particularly the inland courses of England!

That one bunker created a firestorm of controversy and Paton and Low ironically concluded because of or despite that controversy that they must really then have been onto something in architecture!

Later Max Behr took and used that Woking bunker concept and obviously refined it and also wrote about the concept of it he referred to as "line of charm". Behr even got into the philosophical and psychological aspects of his "line of charm" concept.

Even today, I think Behr's "line of charm" concept might be the single best and easiest way to create true unavoidable strategic play for the future. I wish more architects would use the concept more often and frankly I can't think of near enough holes that have it today--old or new.

We've been over this area before maybe a year or so ago and reasons for not using "line of charm" more often were given like not enough real estate to have the necessary width to do it etc.

Still I wish it could be done more somehow as I do believe it is the best way to create strategy that almost everyone has to take notice of. Most of golf architecture today seems to be center related for the required shots! Max Behr's "line of charm" concept is really all about taking that center of things away from the golfer and so he then has to find other avenues and ways to go--the other alternate and optional avenues and ways to go then become what he called "the lines of charm"!

Today's architects seem to be into creating holes that have a "required" shot, maybe another, but mostly not and most of the "required" shots are vaguely center related--at the very least the center is generally where you can't go wrong since the flanks are generally the place where you can. Their architecture very much shows you where to go, sometimes they even write little course books telling you where to go--not really very thoughful, is it?

Obviously Behr wanted to turn this upside down. Obviously Behr wanted the golfer to dream up his own routes and strategies. It would seem so since Behr talked a lot about allowing any golfer their own "freedom" and the necessity of letting them express themselves. He even referred to the bunker that created the "lines of charm" as something that wasn't necessarily even penal--just something to prick the senses which would then allow the golfer to see the possibilities of all the various options--the lines of charm!

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom, What you are saying is the knock against Trent Jones golf courses - there is generally a specific way to play many of his golf holes. Behr would have hated that concept!

Still, to this day, few architects build a Woking 4th fairway bunker. Why? I don't know.

Each golfer stands up on the 4th tee and ponders:

a) do I bail left?
b) take the aggressive line right and set up an easy pitch?, or
c) lay back short of it?

The answer varies from day to day depending on the golfer's game, the weather, the hole location, etc.

Such decisions surely make the hole endlessly fascinating to play?

I still reckon its golf architecture's most important bunker.

[E Roald]

Really good post TE,

I can't see why you can't have a go at that, even if there isn't more real estate than on the average project.

In my view, this can be done by presenting closely mown turf from fairway to fairway, so to speak. You would still have your center-lines on the layout plan, seventy yards apart or whatever safety margins are the norm in a given country, just to strengthen your position in court if there is an accident - someone gets hit by a golf ball.

In important part is making sure landing areas don't overlap.

The closely mown area would then be broken up in places with patches of native roughs and attractive looking hazards; hollows and humps, bunkers, bushes etc.

However, the maintenance budget is an issue in most places and this calls for greater mowing expenses, hours, machinery wear, oil and what have you. It would be interesting to hear from some superintendents on this.

What do you think? Is this realistic?

[Peter Galea]

E Roald,
Public or Private?
The maintenance budget is tied to the site and conditions desired. If it's turfgrass it needs to be mowed. For years until rough was in vogue, courses were mowed wall to wall at the same height (usually around 3/4 of an inch). Natives take less maintenance after establishment (3-5 years). Initially pure native areas are much more expensive than fairways. Seed is more expensive, it requires more hand work and weeds are a problem. Machine work is much cheaper than hand work. Remember the rule of Seven: 7 men with 7 weedeaters, 7 days a week will lead to a 7 figure budget. You can have anything you want as long as goals are clear and the committee or management is committed to the "maintenance meld" (first time I've used the term-thanks TEPaul).

[TEPaul]

E.Roald:

Makes sense to me what you say. I'm interested too in what Pete Galea said about maintenance costs etc and the era before roughs came into vogue. I don't know much about grasses and agronomy but I plan to learn. Does that mean that grass could be mowed at like 3/4 inch (maybe second cut height) for not much more maintenance dollars?

If so your idea sounds good to me and that would give a designer the ability to put more hazard features in the middle or in some random places other than the hugely prevalent flanks you see so much of.

You have to read Max Behr very closely to understand how he thought about this stuff though. He didn't really advocate that golf features like bunkers etc necessarily had to be there to automatically exact some penalty from the golfer (although they might). He felt they should be there as sort of a pin prick on the senses to generate a conscious feeling of freedom of expression of  available strategies. You can imagine how this can be different from a big open field with nothing really do think about.

So maybe another way to do it in today's world of less available real estate (and therefore less width) is to make the features in the middle (hazards, whatever) smaller! They won't take up as much space but the golfer is likely to be just as aware of them as if they were much larger!

I like this idea a lot and have been thinking about it for a few years and certainly since Gil Hanse recommended a very small bunker right up near the approach to our 18th green and just about in the middle.

It will be small but there won't be a single golfer that plays the hole that won't be aware of it. It may even be a little unlikely to get into and maybe even a little unlucky but it will very much be in their minds and they will probably do other things because it's there vs not being there. They won't want to shoot right at it so they will be thinking of how to avoid it (although it is so small) and essentially that's Max Behr's concept of "lines of charm"!

[T_MacWood]

What do we know of Behr's actually designs? I wonder if he was able to incorporate his theories. How much of his work at Lakeside remains?

[TEPaul]

I don't know but I hear not much is left. Maybe our California contingent (TommyN, Geoff, DanW, et al) know more. I gather though, that much of what he did is lost in time and tide!

You should all read his bio in C&W! It's quite extraordinary. He seems to have been the type of "renaissance man" in golf architecture and other things like George Thomas, Robert Hunter or maybe Chandler Egan and some of those interesting multi-capable people of that era of golf architecture.

Like them he may have done some interesting things in architecture and like a few of them he thought and wrote well--boy could he think and write!!

How would you like to sit down to dinner on the coast in the late 1920s with Geo. Thomas, Robert Hunter, Alister MacKenzie and Max Behr? Jeesus what an education that could be!!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
Unfortunately, Damian Pascuzzo is doing further destruction to Lakeside; The great David Rainville and Gary Bye have shown the City of Montebello the errors of their ways and Steve Halsey is further curing Hacienda of all of that horrible architecture that once existed there.

The three pretty much left-overs of the Great Max Behr are Rancho Sante Fe, Montecito CC and Oakmont CC in Glendale. Both of them have been slightly altered. I would more then reason why because of too much challenge and not enough reward--the art of individuals not wanting to find their best path to the whole. This because it would dare them to think.

One of these days, I'm going to take a whole week and play the Max Behr tour of courses in succession and reseek that line of charm, which some of see as a line of integrity and wealth of knowledge.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()