How do you turn back the Clock ?

[THuckaby2]

"But, let me try to convince you, Ken, Tom and others that strategy can be in the absolute, isolated from aethetics."

Not sure it I'm the Tom you're talking to, but if so, I never said otherwise.

I just didn't think The Road Hole was a good choice of lack of aesthetics, that's all.

Oh yes, OBVIOUSLY strategy can exist on the ugliest of golf holes... hell, there are a few at my local urban executive course that have very nice strategic elements.  That wasn't my issue at all.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I was referencing the Tom's, Paul, and MacWood, sorry.

[THuckaby2]

I kinda thought that - no hassles!

I need to change my name.  I feel so common as yet another "Tom".  "Your Majesty" sounds good, but self-coronation is not my style.  Oh well... the rest of the world just calls me Huckaby anyway (or something that rhymes with it), so that ought to work here.

Not all that many of those around, so I rarely get confused!  

TH

[ForkaB]

Mike C (and Tom MacW)

I don't think I miss anything more on any course I play than any of us on this board.  I just (maybe) am able to block out the extraneous stuff (i.e. what sort of grunge lies between me and the Elysian Fields) better than others.  Whatever my powers of observations might be, I've been brave and honest about expressing them on this site, and I think they stand up OK in this august company.

Of course, as Tom H rightly points out, I do (sometimes) find it difficult to block out hazards, particularly in competitive rounds, but that's no different, I would think, than for any of us who play competitively, at whatever level.  And, Tom H, I do (now) play 30+ competitive rounds a year.  Each of my clubs has 30-40 stroke play competitions during the season and if one wishes to there are also numerous Open competitions at nearby clubs (many of which are 36-hole events) each week, as well as midweek Senior Events, now that I am of that certain age......If Tom Paul played over here, his handicap would get down to +2 where it belongs as soon sa you could say "Bob's your uncle!"

Well, enough about me.....

As for the topic.  I think Ken B is doing something very worthwhile at Friar's Head, and I am sure (and hope) he will succeed and prosper.  I do not, however, think it will "turn back the clock."  Outside of science fiction, this is not possible.

[THuckaby2]

Rich - I never doubted you played 30 competitive tourneys per year, I just find that so cool that I wanted to know more how it happened!

Just to make me even more jealous, I'm gonna assume you also play at least 50+ rounds outside of these.  Respond only if this is outrageously wrong.

Damn the grass is always greener....

TH

ps - the Goodale topic is much more interesting to me than the Friar's Head one, to which all I could add is "wow, that's a cool looking place."  So please do bear with me!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
These hazards send the same signal?













Out of bounds is out of bounds, the stake sends the same signal because the pentalty is the same--OB is absolute. Bunkers are different, they possess different aesthetics, different characteristics, different penalities, and based on their aesthetics each send a unique message. The message the bunkers of above send me, with the exception of one, is golfer beware your fortune is uncertain. If you decide to take a risk and find me, you could draw a relatively straight-foward bunker lie or you might be totally screwed, most likely screwed.

My staretegy is effected by the nature of the hazards, water and OB's penalty is absolute there is no recovery, bunkers penalties vary and because of that your startegic thought process is effected--at least for me that is true.

Demension and configuration are elements of a bunkers aesthetics. They are linked, just as aesthetics is linked to strategy and playability, and they are all linked to the total golfing experience. Isn't that what seperates great golf architecture or a great golf course from a good or mediocre one. Interesting, unusual, striking features in conjunction with thought provoking strategy. Isn't that why many were salivating at the sight of the Friar's Head photos?

[D. Kilfara]

Tom H. - When I think of so-called "great" golf courses with little or nothing going for them by way of aesthetic appeal, the first name that comes to mind is Carnoustie. Bleak, stark, depressing...whatever you wish to call it, few will find its looks appealing. If you like Carnoustie, I'm inclined to say that you fall on the Rich Goodale side of this equation, at least in some sense. I've never been a fan of Carnoustie; I can identify it as an excellent test of golf with a number of nice strategic elements to it, but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. (There are other factors at play than the sheer architecture vs. aesthetics, of course - its terrific difficulty being among them - but I'm highlighting this particular contrast to make a point.) So perhaps that's a better example than the Road Hole...

Cheers,
Darren

[brad_miller]

Tom, where is the 2nd from last from? And is pic #2 from Pac Dunes?

[Paul Turner]

Strategy doesn't simply disappear once you're in a bunker.  How a bunker looks, also determines how it plays.

I found myself with some weird stances in the bunkers at Pacific Dunes and varying lies too:  from very hard packed sand to loose floury stuff.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Brad
Yes #2 is Pacific Dunes and the other is from Royal Co. Down.

[brad_miller]

Tom, thank you

[TEPaul]

Rich:

What was I thinking that day I played Merion's #18 from the tips with you. I don't know that I can exactly remember what I was thinking that day but I should explain something to you first about that tee shot to me.

I've played that course a lot over the years in things likes State Amateurs, Philly Opens, maybe a couple of Hugh Wilsons, Bailey Cups, all kinds of tournament situations and that tee shot is one of those that really concern me.

The reasons are simple. I know exactly what I'm capable of doing and one thing I've never done is hit the tee ball far. I'm short off the tee and always have been. Maybe 240 max unless there's roll involved. My irons aren't the same though--more normal distance. So Merion's #18's tee shot has been sort of near my limit in some conditions with that tee shot. When I played tournament golf all the time I was straight and I was very consistent but I did know my limits and never tried to force things. If I did I was very inconsistent.

I've had a disaster or two or three on #18's tee shot and one never forgets those things but mostly I've played it OK. On that hole I'll take 5 gladly if I'm pretty sure I'm not risking something much higher.

So given all that when I stepped back 30 yards on that tee for the first time with you (that tip tee is new), and I'm older and not the same player, I guess I must have thought there's very little possiblity of getting my tee ball out to that fairway and I was right. I sort of recall I hit that tee shot pretty good for me and was still short of the fairway.

But that kind of thing doesn't really bother me--never did--as it wasn't a disaster to me as hitting it in the quarry would have been. My ball was in the rough, with not much problem in front of the fairway and I would have just taken something and played the hole like a par 5. Sometimes I made a 4 like that but rarely worse than a 5.

But does that tee shot get to me psychologically? It sure does, always has because I'm definitely not oblivous to the danger of a real mistake--it's happened before but even if it hadn't I'd feel the same. I've been good at blocking out all kinds of situations over the years and such on all kinds of courses but certainly some are much different than others. The toughest courses that way I call the "high intensity level" courses and they're harder to score on day in and day out then others that don't have that. I'm not alone in feeling that way about those courses--everyone I know does.

But I'm not sure what you and Pat are trying to say about the relative danger on a golf course--whether dangerous bunkering, dangerous carries, whatever.

If you're trying to say that if you were playing a course like Pine Valley in something meaningful like a tournament and that the dangers of that place compared to some other course doesn't occur to you, doesn't effect you at all--then frankly I'm not buying that for a New York second.

When Pat Mucci says things like:

"The bunker must be avoided, irrespective of its form."

or,

"The look of the bunker has absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process, shot and club selection."

We all know we want to avoid bunkers but on some courses we want to avoid them more than other courses and that can effect any golfer psychologically. And on the second remark maybe all those things don't influence Pat's or your strategic considerations differently on a really dangerous course compared to a more forgiving one but if they don't at all and you treat all courses the same that way then in my opinion those more dangerous courses will inevitably and eventually take their toll on you disproportionately.

I think anyone has to adjust their course management on a course such as Pine Valley compared to something simpler and give all those more dangerous slim margin for error areas a wider bearth. If you don't they'll eventually get you and you'll be into the so-called "others".

But you and Pat are probably just talking about "compartmentalizing" something that a lot of successful tournament players are good at for obvious reasons.

But would any of them say they're completely oblivious to the psychological dangers of the features and such of a course like a Pine Valley? That they don't try to adjust to it or think about it or even have it effect their execution on various shots sometimes?  Not a one of them I've ever met and that was some pretty good national players.

Maybe a player like Jamie Slonis if he sees this should jump in here--he sure is a better tournament player than I ever was.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

We're talking about strategy and the play of "A" hole, not comparing the play of different holes, with different configurations, and different relationships between the hazard/s and the target/s.

DIFFERENT holes, with DIFFERENT physical properties, with DIFFERENT HAZARDS require different assessments.

Perhaps the play of your game is distracted by the aethetics, preventing you from focusing on the strategy required.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

DIFFERENT aesthetic...DIFFFERENT messages...DIFFERENT strategic considerations

Perhaps my game is distracted by the aesthetics..and I love it! I look foward to more distractions in the future. Remember now: aesthetics, playing characteristics and strategy are linked.

[TEPaul]

"......If Tom Paul played over here, his handicap would get down to +2 where it belongs as soon sa you could say "Bob's your uncle!"

Rich:

A guy who can't break 80 can have a +2 handicap over there? What kind of handicap system are you people running over there? I'll stay over here and when I start playing and posting again it'll be about a 10, thank you very much.

[Eye Doctor]

You guys on the aesthetics side need to stop focusing on bunker grass and start focusing on fairway lines. Fairway lines send signals to the golfer's body about the shape of the next shot, though they may be false signals in some cases. Focus on the way certain ocular signals make it easier for the body to follow through with a given swing plane.

[JSlonis]

After reading much of the last couple of pages, it seems to me like nobody can understand what the other person is trying to say.  

I think Merion is the perfect example for this discussion.  Much has been made of their restoration and primarily their bunker work.  Many people loved the older look of Merion bunkers, but over the decades, many bunkers had lost some of their original playability. Now redone, the bunkers are aesthetically different, but I think the playability and difficulty has improved.

For me, at least under tournament conditions, aesthetics and the actual severity of a hazard are two totally different things. During non-tournament rounds I appreciate and love a great looking bunker complex as much as the next GCA'er, but when my score really counts, I could care less what a bunker looks like. I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score.  For instance in a tourney somewhere if I make a mistake and hit it into a "great" looking but horribly penal bunker, I'm not going to be less upset that I just made double bogey from a bunker that was aesthetically pleasing.

I think aesthetics can effect strategy maybe the first couple times you play a course, because you don't actually know the difficulty of the hazard. Some bunkers from a distance can appear more difficult or benign based on there appearance, but how they effect your decision making and strategy would change after you got to know the course better.

TE Paul,

Thanks for the complement, but I've seen you in action on the course, with your comments on this website about the state of your game you must be sandbagging some of these guys for high stakes matches.

To echo your example above about playing a tournament at a course such as Pine Valley, I think I posted something similar about strategy after playing in the GAP Open at PVGC last July.  That was the first competitive event I have played at Pine Valley.  I had played there about 5-6 times prior, but all under social situations.  As you know the pins were set very difficult that day, and it was a very humbling experience.  Suddenly pars were fantastic, and the avoidance of the "others" became very real.  I learned quickly that it's one thing to make a big number when your playing a $10 nassau, it's a whole different ballgame when someone is carrying a damn sign around with your name and score on it for all to view.  Regardless of aesthetics, which at PVGC are world class, there is just such a smaller and more severe margin for error than so many other courses. Because of this factor, I think I played too conservative at times, which probably cost me a few shots...but...not as many shots if I would have played too aggressively. 

I think the bottom line is that  "look/aethetics" and "severity/playabilty" are two very different factors that when brought together and designed correctly make certain golf courses as great as they are.  The perfect melding of these factors is what make us protective of the Golden Age courses and excited about the new designs by guys like C&C, Doak, and Hanse to name a few.

[ForkaB]

Jamie

Great post.  I fully agree with part of your statement:

"I think the bottom line is that  "look/aethetics" and "severity/playabilty" are two very different factors....."

I'm not yet sure about the second half of the statement:

".......that when brought together and designed correctly make certain golf courses as great as they are."

As I read it, you are also saying that the same hole/course can be looked at very differently by the golfer depending on the situation (i.e. Friendly Nassaau vs. tournament).  Fully agree.

Tom P

Thanks for the excellent post regarding your feelings on the tee of #18 Merion which shows us very clearly that different golfers, with different capabilities and histories can look at the same hole even under the same circumstances very differently.

Darren K

Your post regarding Carnoustie was very interesting too.  What I think you are saying is that, from a "severity/playabilty" aspect the course is world-class, but that its "look/aethetics" values make the course a "lesser" one in your mind.  This maybe gets to the heart of the disagreement we had as to whether of not Carnoustie was over-rated or under-rated.  What are we really "rating" anyway.  Is it just the "cold" on-the-ground architecture (i.e. the "function" of the course) or do we also care about the "form" too--to use the classical architectural nomenclature?

My personal feeling is that the "function" should be pre-eminent.  Part of the reason I feel this way is that I see golf courses as not only a field of play (95%+ of most of our games) but also one of competition.  This is why I think that Jamie's post is so important.  From him we see how a course like Pine Valley can look so very different when played for fun than it does when played for some sort of prize.  From my much less golf-competent point of view I have seen this many times at my "home" course.  The same hole with a card in my hand and a public scoreboard awaiting me at the clubhouse plays so very differently than the same hole when played with friends and with only a pint or 22 awaiting us at the clubhouse.

Tom MacK

Your pictures only continue to reinforce my belief that "form" is highly overrated when discussing GCA.  I think of some of the holes that I know really well and have played many times under all sorts of conditions and I know that the postcard pictures of them have virtually no relationship to what the hole means to the golfer.  What pictures of golf holes are is "virtual reality."  They are works of "art" photographically but not in terms of the "art" or lack therof which is on the ground.  That can only be understood if you have been on the ground, under many circumstances, as Jamie S has been at Pine Valley, and Tom P has been at Merion.

Archibald Macleish's poem "Ars Poetica" concludes (I think)with the line:

"A poem should not mean, but be."

To me this means that deconstructive analysis of any art (i.e. the search for "meaning" or the need for "rating") is less satisfying than the personal experiencing of that art.  I feel the same way about golf courses.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

It seems like we're all getting on the same page here. But I think this remark by Jamie Slonis is still true;

"After reading much of the last couple of pages, it seems to me like nobody can understand what the other person is trying to say."

I think that's always true to an extent on here generally but more so when trying to explain some of the more nuancy things about golf and its architecture particularly when it gets into the psychological side of golf.

I think the thing that most of this thread is getting hung up on which creates misunderstandings is basically just what the exact meaning of a word or two is to anyone or everyone.

What does "aesthetics" really mean to anyone or everyone? That's probably the central problem on this thead with undertanding if that really is the word that's being used here and the subject being discussed. Does it mean something that just LOOKS aesthetically pleasing or beautiful in a ruggedly dangerous sense (but maybe isn't really) or is "aesthetics totally synonymous with real danger to scoring and such? There certainly is a difference between the two thoughts although how it's peceived psyhologically can change from player to player.

But even in that very mysterious area of golf called "psycholigical effect" I do think there're some remarkable "truisms" about the game in that area and for everyone. And frankly, that mysterious truism of "psychological effect" does not spare any golfer--not Rich Goodale or Pat Mucci--not anyone!

Certainly it can effect some differently than others-more or less than others, but no one can completely escape it and become totally oblivious to it. And if they think they can escape it and do become oblivious to it and don't need to adjust to the fact of it, the truism is a golf course will eventually get them, get everyone and evenually make them pay in lost strokes.

That's perhaps the single factor that makes golf so fascinating and so eternally maddening at the same time!

Athough what's actually on the ground may be quanitifable and exactly explainable and definable to any golfer it's really  what he thinks the consequences of it may be to him in all kinds of ways that's more meaningful--most meaningful.

What anyone thinks the consequences are might effect differently things like club selection and the planning of a shot, strategy, whatnot, but mostly and more often the perceived consequences of particularly mistakes or failure is what effects the execution of the shot once all the planning is past and done!

I agree with Jamie that a bunker that just has some ruggedly aesthetic grass on it's surrounds isn't going to scare a good player much if the bunker isn't hard to escape from. But the grass might concern him if it's hard to escape from!

But if Rich is claiming that the Pacific Ocean on Cypress's #16 and the consequences of going into it neither effects nor even remotely occurs to him psychologically--I'm sorry but I'll have to take exception to believing that.

It probably just gets down to what's already been said before on here--if he's playing for nothing of consequence the consequences of a mistake or failure aren't a big deal but if he is playing for something those consequences of a mistake or failure into the Pacific will occur to him just like any of the rest of us. What he does about it and how he handles it is another matter--just like all of us.

A lot of the understanding of this kind of thing I think probably does get down to very varied feelings about consequences and to get the best impression and the best real understanding of it, it's probaby necessary to try real tournament golf--whatever level anyone wishes to use.

Bobby Jones said a lot of things that ring with eternal truism but the one he said that does most to me is this one;

"There is golf and then there is tournament golf and they are definitely not the same."

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

JSlonis
The Merion bunkers lost some of their playability, how so?

"...but when my score really counts, I could care less what a bunker looks like. I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score." It doesn't sound like you would be in the optimum state of mind to judge the complete architectural merits of a golf course. Although not caring, and not noticing what the golf course looks like are two different things. Obvioulsy you have to see what the hazard looks like (to make the proper judgement as a focused technician) - you see the severety of the hazard to the left of the 13th green at PVGC - you just don't care. Again this reminds of what TE Paul said his attitude was prior to his interest golf architecture, he was focused pretty much on outcome, I suspect that Pat Mucci has had similar experiences.

'I think the bottom line is that  "look/aethetics" and "severity/playabilty" are two very different factors that when brought together and designed correctly make certain golf courses as great as they are.  The perfect melding of these factors is what make us protective of the Golden Age courses and excited about the new designs by guys like C&C, Doak, and Hanse to name a few.' I agree with you and I think that is what GCA is all about, the pursuit of great golf architecture.

Rich
Thanks for your advice, but I've been on the ground plenty of times: The Golf Club, Sand Hills, Cypress Point, Crystal Down,
Shoreacres, Shinnecock, Eastward Ho!, Oyster Harbors, Pinehurst #2, Chicago, Pepper Pike, Riviera, Bel-Air, Cape Breton, Cascades, Camargo, Kirtland, Oakmont, Burning Tree, Oakland Hills, Pebble Beach, and Casa de Campo to name but a few. But I am certainly not complete in my "field work".

One of the advantages I might have is that I actually look at/study the features of the given golf course, in an attempt to better understand the architectural whole--including aesthetics, playing characteristics and the melding of the two. It doesn't do much good walking though an art museum with blinders on. I liken your your extraordinary tunnel vision to a visit to Mackintosh's Hill House or Wright's Fallingwater for the expressed purpose of going to the can, you might accomplish your goal, but you will miss a lot.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

The changed "playability" of the Merion bunkers pre and post restoration went sort of like this;

Pre-restoration the bunkers had real sanding and drainage problems and were pretty hard packed. That condition for balls lying in the sand in Merion's pre-restoration bunkers was harder for everyone to play out of but much harder for less good players than better ones. Better players just know how to play out of those conditions better. But those old bunkers were not as deep as the post-restortion bunkers which makes it harder to play out of for everyone but obviously harder for less good players than better ones.

So Merion sort of went from difficulty of lie pre-restoration to not so much so with lie post-restoration. But they went the other way with the architecture (structure=depth) of them from much easier pre-restoration to much harder post-restoration.

The net effect is the Merion bunkers post-restoration are harder to play out of for everyone. And the additional net effect is strategically they have more effect and function than they used to. Of course the way anyone might look at this change would probably be influenced by the way they look at the value of recovery in golf and at Merion.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

You are right about Merion's bunkers, from my limited observations.  As I think I said over a year ago, "Look ugly, play great."  This gets to the heart of this thread, does it not?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Sounds like a mechanical issue: Hard packed sand vs. soft sand; deep bunkers vs. deeper bunkers.

I wonder if the Valentine's could have addressed the mechanical issues, and if so what the results would have been.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...let me try to sum up what I think I've learned....

1) A hole can be strategic without being aesthetically pleasing or very natural looking (i.e. 18th at TPC Sawgrass, bunkers at Merion)

2) A hole can be aesthetically pleasing and even look very natural while offering zippo strategy (Tom Fazio gets faulted for this often)

3) The best architecture recognizes that both are fundamentally important, are ideally complementary, and inevitably offers both.

Would anyone agree or disagree with these conclusions?

[TEPaul]

"As I think I said over a year ago, "Look ugly, play great."  This gets to the heart of this thread, does it not?"

Rich;

Asssuming by "looks ugly" you mean poor looking architecture---after all this time--yes, I guess it does get down to the heart of this thread--and the outcome is that to some people poor looking architecture never makes for completely good architecture and for others it doesn't matter. If what architecure looks like doesn't matter to you as long as it plays great, you and I will just have to continue to disgree about that. To me it can and should play great and look great too.