[SPDB]

On the terrific "Would Anyone Notice It" thread, there seems to be a fundamental rift between the idea offered and disagreed with. No one who espouses the idea that PH#2 lacks quality. I think (and I may be assuming too much) on the contrary, its architectural genius is so subtle, that, if introduced today in an unheralded opening, it might be easily overlooked. (perhaps this has something to do with the "wow!" factor that not even Fazio has an absolute claim to).

What course do you think poses the most subtle architectural quality. Feel free to subjectify "subtle," but it seems to me that a course that reveals its quality despite its more pedestrian features is a pretty good criteria.

To me Pinehurst #2 is just such a course.

On the other side of the spectrum are courses that because of features either created or exploited immediately demands that you recognize the architecture positively or negatively. A perfect example is NGLA. No doubt the course has many subtle features, Muccian in their subtlety, but the first time you play the course you can't help but be overwhelmed by the numerous bunkers, blind shots, and roller coaster architecture.

[A_Clay_Man]

sean- The Rawls course is such a place. Doak even told me that his crew has matured to the point that they realize 'subtler is better'.

Pacific Grove, to me, is the epitome of subtlety.

[Jim Franklin]

I vote for Seminole.

[SPDB]

Adam -
I'll take your word for it on the Rawls Course. Nevertheless, hasn't "manufactured" been used in describing the course? Wouldn't that be something noticeable the first time around?

Also, on Pac Grove, isn't there an Ocean nearby that might color the architecture?  

[SPDB]

Mr. Hurricane:

Isn't there an ocean nearby Seminole too?

[ForkaB]

I'll vote for TOC.  I've played it 6-7 times, walked it another 2-3 times, watched it on TV many more times, tried to get afficionados like Nacccarato and Kilfara and Morrissett to explain it to me (to no avail) and I still don't get it.

Does nearly complete randomness equate to "subtlety?"  If so, let's start designing golf courses with blindfolds and darts........

[Brian_Gracely]

Does nearly complete randomness equate to "subtlety?"  If so, let's start designing golf courses with blindfolds and darts........

Rich,

Isn't it enough that we have to choose like this from the stock market?  

[SPDB]

Mike - Flatness of site, I don't really see as having that much of an impact, after all it doesn't get much flatter than Shadow Creek.

Cape Arundel would seem to be a good choice. Travis, however, was a fairly wild architect whose architecture immediately requires notice. Garden City, for example (including, of course, Emmet) with its numerous hazards would not be what I, personally, had in mind for subtle architecture. Similarly, one trip down the 16th, or the adjacent 8th and 15th holes at Round Hill will eliminate any notions of subtlety to my mind.

[SPDB]

Subtle hazards and randomness do not fit into my personal concept of subtle.

A scattered collection of "subtle features" do not create the subtlety of the entire layout. Likewise, random features will, more often than not, strike notice in the player ("hmm...why is that there?" perhaps its the architecture"). It is beyond dispute that TOC has innumerable random and subtle features, but i do not think that makes its overall  architecture "subtle."

Just my opinion, and when Pat M. comes on here, he could be wrong.  

[SPDB]

Rich (fellow EAer) -

Isn't Painswick the quintessence of "randomness"?

[A_Clay_Man]

Sean- the only person who even cared, that TRC was manufactured, was Whitten.

While I have never been to Scotland, I associated the recovery aspects of TRC to be what I imagine playing amongst the hillocks. Perhaps it resembles ireland more, but reallly who cares. The course gets the juices flowing through the cerebral cortex and that cannot be said of many courses. Honestly, the thought "manufactured" never crossed my mind. Maybe it(my mind) was just too busy.

As for PG, I was totally referring to the features on the ground. Not the surrounds.

[ForkaB]

SPBD

Actually, not.

Humps and bumps do not randomness make, any more than......

Brian

.......the seeming statistical "randomness" of securities prices can completely mask the non-random subtleties on which fortunes can be made.

[Scott_Burroughs]

How about Winged Foot?  Yes, it's hard, but the land is supposedly 'boring', what views are there, and is there a wow! factor?  The bunkering and small treacherous greens?  That doesn't always grab peoples' attention.

How about Riviera?

[Gene Greco]

Wannamoiset and Garden City Men's Club are my choices.  

[Jim Franklin]

SPDB -

There is an ocean nearby, but I never really noticed it. I just thought that the course would be a joy to play often because it could play so differently from day to day. That's what I consider subtle architecture.

[Tony_Chapman]

sub·tle    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (stl)
adj. sub·tler, sub·tlest

1. So slight as to be difficult to detect or describe; elusive: a subtle smile.

2. Difficult to understand; abstruse: an argument whose subtle point was lost on her opponent.

3. Able to make fine distinctions: a subtle mind.

4. Characterized by skill or ingenuity; clever.

5. Crafty or sly; devious.

Courses that I have played that fit these descriptions.

Definition 1: Pinehurst #2. I would say the difficulty, until you get to the green sites, is "difficult to detect."

Definition 2: Tobacco Road. A wonderful course, but after playing just once, "difficult to understand."

Definition 4: Sand Hills and Pasatiempo. I hope most agree that these courses are "clever" and are characterized by architectural "skill and ingenuity."

Just my 2 cents. Thanks!

[T_MacWood]

I'm not certain what is the greatest subtle golf course, but my vote for the king of subtle architecture would be Ross. Of course there are exceptions, he did create some bold designs and some bold features on relatively subltle designs, but generally his courses are understated and subtle. In fact that may have been his genius.

I've played number of Ross courses that if you didn't know they were a Ross, the architecture/architect would be the furtherest thing from your mind. Some courses (and designers) demand you take notice of the architect's involvement. Ross courses just seem to lay natually upon the land combined with his mostly understated features. It appears Ross did not to want to be noticed.

He must have had the same philosophy I have when it comes to sports officiating--the best referees and officials are the ones by the end of the game you never noticed.

[Mike Hendren]

Visually, The Old Course was not nearly the mystery I anticipated.  As a push-slicer I greatly feared its counter-clockwise routing.  Ironically, over two rounds I drove the ball as well as I have in years, protected by a stout right-to-left wind going out and just aiming down the middle of the golf course coming home.  I don't recall ever being in any real trouble, only having to play sideways out of a bunker once in 36 holes.  I never dreamed of having an 8-iron and 6-iron into 17, which made the 5's there all the more frustrating.

Somehow the strokes added up to 84 and 87 at the end of the day and I can't for the life of me figure out how that happened.  My putting was abysmal due to both a lack of talent and an inability to steady myself in the wind, but even so I "felt" I had played to 80-82.  The 12th hole appears so easy, yet it owns me with 11 strokes taken over two rounds.  

The only conclusion I reach is that the subtleties are on the ground, not in the eye.  IMHO, it is the greatest golf course I have ever played or seen.  

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

You know what else is great (or maybe not, depending on how you look at it) about The Old Course?  It only gets tougher as one plays it more, and starts to see all the horrible score-wrecking things that can happen.  Heck man, having only pitched out sideways once, you are still in the blissful honeymoon period!

Having taken a 10 on #15, which included 5 shots to get out of one bunker, I now know.  And play it in terror.

Greatest golf course I have ever played or seen?  That's a tall statement I am not prepared to say, but only because I've been lucky to see a lot of other great ones - damn near the same as you, come to think of it though!  Let's just say it's right up there.

And in any case when it comes to architectural sublety, good lord if there's any better than TOC I can't imagine it.  

But is it sublety or is it complete randomness, as Rich says?  i don't know the answer to that one.  One way or the other, I can't imagine ever figuring out all it's mysteries, so it takes the prize here for me.

TH

[Brian_Gracely]

I'm curious where Rich would put Dornoch on the subtle scale?  Being as it was Ross' schoolhouse, and he's the acknowledged 'king of subtle', did he learn his skills in school or did he evolve to this?

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

I did not experience the randomness I expected at The Old Course.  No drive down the middle of the fairway that kicked into oblivion, no well-executed bump and run that performed acrobatics, etc.  This surprised me.  In fact I found the course welcomed and accomodated creative play.  On 16 I inadvertantly drove right of the Principals Nose and putted the ball for my second to w/i three feet.  As someone who traps the ball, the place was right up my alley.  I'm totally guessing that is highly similar to Augusta National (cue the bashers to jump in!) in that approach shots require an extremely high level of precision that is not obvious absent almost unlimited play.  Visually, it looks like a cupcake for the touring professionals yet I don't ever see myself breaking 80 there.

Had I to do it all over again, I would have skipped everything else, even my beloved West Links at North Berwick and played The Old Course dawn to dusk during my stay last fall when the crowds were down.  

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, Mike.  I feel your enthusiasm and joy about the course.  Man it's tough not to feel but your enthusiasm is infectious! And hell yes it welcomes and encourages creative play - likely more than any course on the planet - the RESULTS just don't always come out like one intends, as you shall see when you play it more...  

But anyway, I'm a different sort, preferring to play many courses a few times than one many times, so I can't say I'd do the same as you.  But that being said, I sure wouldn't mind a life where I could play TOC, oh, say 200 times.  

BTW, I did experience randomness.  The more you play it, the more likely that is to occur... and the more the fear will deepen.

One more BTW - I know we discussed this before, but you're take that you can't see yourself breaking 80 there continues to surprise me... I found that miss the bunkers, putt well, and this can be done - all fear aside - as my 74 in my 2nd round (including choke-filled bogeys on 16 and 17) attests.  You can play the game as well or better than I can... And several other regulars here have achieved good scores there...

Of course achieving a score is sure as hell not what it's about on TOC, I just mention this because I find your pessimism curious.  The course is many things, but truly difficult is not one of them.  

TH

[ForkaB]

I'm curious where Rich would put Dornoch on the subtle scale?  Being as it was Ross' schoolhouse, and he's the acknowledged 'king of subtle', did he learn his skills in school or did he evolve to this?

Brian

I think that Dornoch is very un-subtle at first glance.  More than any great course I know, everything you need to know is out there in front of you, or at least so you think.....  The first timer can play Dornoch VERY well because it is so seemingly transparent.  It gets more and more subtle, the more you play it, but I think that is probably true for any great golf course.  In fact, this may be THE most important criterion for a great golf course.  This, of course, puts to shame the concept that you can "rate" a golf course on a series of one time rater visits, no matter how statistically significant your sample of "raters" is, but this is a matter for another thread......

As for Donald Ross.  He would barely recognize the Dornoch of today.  Much as he tweaked #2 continously, so did his mentor, John Sutherland, do the same for Dornoch.  If Ross did "subtle" he learned it all by himself, in the USA, not in Scotland, at least IMHO.

[ChipOat]

I have to play a course a bunch to appreciate the subtle difficulties of 1) strategic design and 2) really excellent green complexes that aren't very visually appealling.  I can't "see" the subtleties - I have to experience them.

Therefore, I have to give the nod to the 2 courses I know best:  Merion and Rockaway Hunting Club.

Merion from the back tees is an easy bogey and a well-earned par.  It used to be a pretty good argument (before 1980) as to whether Merion (back tees) or Pine Valley was the more difficult to score on for the good ball striker.  Now that PV's greens are so much faster, it gets the nod - but it didn't always.  Merion is harder than it looks for the good player.

Rockaway has many green complexes that don't look like much and there are few hazards that really direct one to the "best" side of the fairway off the tee or on the 2nd shot on the 2 par 5's.  But there are 4 or 5 greens that are either angled or tilted (or both) and bunkered such that playing from the "wrong" side of the fairway is not at all easy.  #1 is as good an example as there is: you do NOT want to play that hole down the right side - especially downwind.  The bunkering's pretty shallow and the greens don't look too challenging until you get above the hole, but 6 or 7 of the holes at RHC are harder than they "ought to be" if you don't hit it in the right place.

[SPDB]

I'm not certain what is the greatest subtle golf course, but my vote for the king of subtle architecture would be Ross. Of course there are exceptions, he did create some bold designs and some bold features on relatively subltle designs, but generally his courses are understated and subtle. In fact that may have been his genius.

I've played number of Ross courses that if you didn't know they were a Ross, the architecture/architect would be the furtherest thing from your mind. Some courses (and designers) demand you take notice of the architect's involvement. Ross courses just seem to lay natually upon the land combined with his mostly understated features. It appears Ross did not to want to be noticed.

Tom - Well said. I think its interesting that among all other courses, Donald Ross tinkered with PH#2 the most. Does the course hold itself out as being the product of constant revising? I don't think so. It's almost as if he peeled away layer upon layer to get the course down to its bare, unadorned simplicity.  

Some examples have been given of Tillie's work, e.g. Winged Foot/Rockaway. Where I think Ross departs from Tillie is at the green end. Its no secret that Tillie's greens were his courses main defenses, and, as such, they tend to be heavily sloped affairs, often with deep bunkers rising up to meet the green surface.

The greens on PH#2, in keeping with the course, are far more subtle. From the fairway, I think Tillie's green complexes strike far more fear into the player, while Ross' greens at PH#2 tend to victimize the player with folds that form the crowning.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()