[Mike_Trenham]

Interesting how only a month or so ago, some could not be convinced that what was "off the property" was still part of the architecture.  

Mark,

Please post the name of this thread.  I can't quite remember which one you are referencing.  A link would be even nicer.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
It was the thread where people were saying that long range views for example, were not part of the architecture.  Clearly if you read this thread, you will see golf holes are designed with such views in mind.  

I was just at a course in Utah last week and if someone doesn't think the snow capped mountains had an influence on where the architect placed and routed his holes, they are woefully mistaken.  Those mountains in the distance ARE very much integral to and part of the design.
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

This particular piece of property I'm working on in Montana is 80,000 acres, so the backgrounds are still a part of the property!

[Joe Hancock]

Mark:

This particular piece of property I'm working on in Montana is 80,000 acres, so the backgrounds are still a part of the property!

Tom,

What could par possibly be? 4 days?

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Must be fun narrowing down the golf holes on 80,000 acres  

On this one course I'm involved with I've been explaining to some of the members why moving a greensite will change the design/architecture of the hole because of the long range view beyond the green.  I just hope they don't read that other thread as they will tell me that those views aren't part of the original architecture and I should not be worrying about them  
Mark

[James Bennett]

the background of Mt Coolum's #17 hole is on their web-site home page (surprise, surprise).  Its about 90 minutes drive north of Brisbane in Australia.  Its at the following web address.  Sorry, haven't become 'picture-posting literate' yet.

http://www.mtcoolumgolf.com/

[David Sneddon]

Mark:

This particular piece of property I'm working on in Montana is 80,000 acres, so the backgrounds are still a part of the property!

So do you have any plans or commitments for the other 200 courses they can build on the site???
 

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Maybe we can clear up this difference of opinion real fast of whether or not something off the property in the background is golf architecture or not. What exactly do you think "golf architecture" is?

I think golf architecture is that which a golf architect finds on the property that can be actually used for golf or something he creates on the property that can be used for golf. I don't exactly see how something in the background that's not on the property can actually be used for golf. Of course you may be able to see it but can it be or is it something that can actually be used for golf on the course?

Perhaps you think the definition of golf architecture should include anything that an architect or golfer can see no matter where it is or how far away it is. For instance, do you think the rugged desert mountains that are probably miles away from Shadow Creek (and which Wynn and Fazio had no architectural control over) are part of the "golf architecture" of Shadow Creek?

IF you think that then we simply have different definitions of what golf architecture is and isn't, and then I can understand what you're saying---no problem.

Frankly, I go even farther in my definition of "golf architecture". I consider "golf architecture" that which a golf architect creates.

Do you think the land of TOC was golf architecture before man ever touched it for golf? Or did it become golf architecture after man started to alter and/or enhance it for golf?

[Jason Topp]

As a data point.  In the book Scottish Golf Links, Kyle Phillips explains that the entire underlying theme of the layout at Kingsbarns was "Embracing the Sea." The theory as I understand it was to improve the experience by using the sea as a focal point, even if it was not close to a particular hole.  Given the spiritual connection anyone has with a beautiful backdrop, I cannot help but think that it is a fundamental part of architecture.  The same think holds true for courses flush up against the mountains North of Tucson, the finish into the town at the Old Course, or even the sounds of the church bells in Pinehurst.

In a similar vein, one constantly hears Tom Doak and others talking about using the natural features on a site.  I would expand on that a bit.  To me, using backgrounds in the best possible manner (natural or man-made) is a fundamental part of golf course architecture.  There is a skill involved in making that happen.  

[TEPaul]

Jason:

Mark Parsinen, the owner/creator of Kingsbarns, seems almost fixated on a hole's "background". This in a routing sense for starters.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Jason explained it pretty well.  What more needs to be said.  If an architect routed a hole or set a greensite in part because of the backdrop, then the backdrop is part of the design.  I'm not sure why that is such a hard concept to grasp?  
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

TE:  Since you started this thread I don't understand why you'd insist that backgrounds have nothing to do with golf course architecture.  No, we don't build the background, but a lot of decisions are made based on what we've got to look at, whether it is on site or not.

It's not just distant backgrounds, either.  During the design and construction phase I will frequently move the position of a green a few feet in order to make it fit better into the background.

A great example which we both know is the 18th green at Stonewall (Old).  In Tom Fazio's routing that green would have been at the water's edge; with my changes it couldn't go there because the ninth tee did, so the green was just out away from the water enough to make that safe.  I stared at it from the top of the fairway every day for about a month until it suddenly dawned on me where the green fit best ... so the right edge of the green lined up exactly with the end of the curved stone wall behind the green.  If you moved that green over to the right even 15-20 feet it would be terribly awkward, with the end of the wall sticking out right behind the target area.

If golf architecture were just about golf shots it would be far less complicated ... and golf would not be as beautiful a game.

[Doug Wright]

Backgrounds. One of the reasons housing development courses lose their luster when the houses go in.

[henrye]

This reminds me of another thread where in support of artificial water features, it was suggested that they don't really have any impact on the quality of golf.

The same can be said of backgrounds, however both play a major role in the visual attractiveness of a hole.  The difference may lie in that maximizing the fit and exposure to natural features requires adjustments be made to the course, whereas artificial features allow one to maintain the course and alter the background.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

What an intriguing thread..the use of backgrounds to determine the potential course routing...I love it...after all that is what links golf has used for centuries.
Now, I appreciate that mother nature had contributed tremendoulsy to those particular backdrops found on links courses, but it only makes sense that a modern day architect would try to maximise background for esthetic value.

The use of mountains as a backdrop is certainly one of the most spectacular, as one can experience playing in Palm Springs, and I would certainly expect any architect to make full use of such a background as it sounds TD is trying to optimise on his latest site.

I have certainly found the insight from TD on this topic to be very interesting, especially as we have his views pre and post the site visit..that really is pretty cool.

I simply cannot imagine or for that matter think of any course I have ever played that my overall impression of the golf course was not affected by the background.
To me the esthetic value is very important, for instance the SEaton Carew golf course in north eastern England is spoiled by it's rather obvious view of the nearby power plant..it's routing is great, but my opinions of the course are somewhat tainted by the ugly background.

The other side of the coin, several of the holes at The Preserve are somewhat ordinary but improved by the backdrop of the surrounding hills..notably numbers 10..7..17.

I wonder how courses like CPC ...Pebble Beach....Troon...would be viewed without their wonderful backgrounds?

On the flip side Carnoustie is highly regarded despit it's distinct lack of attractive background...
....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()