News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian_Gracely

The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« on: December 06, 2004, 09:47:14 AM »
I just don't understand why people continue to insist on hole isolation.....come on people, please educate this poor unfortunate soul that just doesn't get it.


Is there just a little tree-hugger in each of us?

Do people actually fear for their lives when playing courses where holes come in close proximity to one another?

Isn't it enough that a course is private, but do each hole also have to be private?  Should those people that love this idea just take a walk (by themselves or 3 close friends) in the woods rather than burden a golf course?

AND THIS IS NOT ANOTHER FRIGGIN' TREE-BASHING THREAD.  IF YOU WANT THAT, GO SEE THAT 10-PAGE MONSTER ON THE PINE VALLEY #1 MESS..... ;)
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 11:17:06 AM by Brian_Gracely »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2004, 12:17:52 PM »
Brian -

This seems to be a personal preference thing. I love open vistas, the beauty - and uncertainty - of the treeless landscape, being able to see other golfers - pretty much everything about wide open golf. But it seems most, even on this board, prefer the isolated hole approach.

I think it's kind of like the liberal/conservative thing - neither side seems to be able to understand or appreciate the other. :)
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 12:18:07 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Phil_the_Author

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2004, 12:23:50 PM »
Brian,

Maybe I am being a little naive here, but I don't know of a singhle instance where an architect has designed a golf course where his/her FIRST and FOREMOST goal was to separate golf holes one from another.

Isn't the general idea to provide a routing that will bring out the best holes possible from a piece of land? And isn't that what dictates the proximity of one hole to another?


DMoriarty

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2004, 12:31:30 PM »
Phillip:

Isnt Shadow Creek designed this way?

For those of you who know Mr. Fazio's work and principles, doesnt he try to insulate each hole from one another so each hole can be a unique experience, visually framed?  

Brian, I prefer it when holes are connect and one can be in touch with the rest of the course.  It helps with my wild shots . . .
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 12:32:31 PM by DMoriarty »

ForkaB

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2004, 12:38:26 PM »
Brian

My understanding is that the fetish for "hole isolation" started with George Crump at Pine Valley, and the success of PV spawned a "Pine Valley Syndrome" amongst golfers which was nearly as powerful as the "no blade of grass out of place" Augusta Syndrome.

Phillip

I've played more than one highly rated modern course that I believe used "hole isolation" as one of their routing themes.  I would guess that a lot of the less highly rated ones use this criterion too.  In fact, it's harder for me to think of modern courses that have designed in some propinquity than ones that have not.  But perhaps my experience is limited....

Brian_Gracely

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2004, 12:40:26 PM »
Brian,

Maybe I am being a little naive here, but I don't know of a singhle instance where an architect has designed a golf course where his/her FIRST and FOREMOST goal was to separate golf holes one from another.

Maybe I need to invite you out to Raleigh CC, when the current approach (to a Ross course that has existing pine trees) is to ADD isolation to each hole through the use of new trees and bushes :'(

Brent Hutto

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2004, 01:29:12 PM »
I enjoy both sort of courses, although in truth I have had very few opportunities to play really wide-open courses. That said, there is also a certain appeal to being surrounded by trees and/or being all alone with the hole you're playing at the moment. I don't think it's an either-or. On the one hand, very few courses that have open vistas have benefitted from massive planting of trees. On the other, a course with a winding routing through forested hillsides would not necessarily be a better course if you came in and clear cut that sucker.

There's a course here in Columbia, SC called Crickentree. It's not a great course but it is one of the better routings among the courses in the area, IMO. A majority of the holes are cut in corridors through mixed pine and hardwood trees in a single file routing. Playing that course as a single first thing in the morning is a special treat that would only be lessened by being able to see half the course at once. The whole idea of the course is playing curving uphill and downhill tee shots, including some reverse-camber doglegs, through narrow corridors of tall trees. It is not a test of strategy but a test of shotmaking. As such, it is perfectly well served by having many isolated holes.

T_MacWood

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2004, 01:32:40 PM »
There have been some studies on aesthetics that deals with this. There is a basic human instinct to see and not to be seen...there is a little of that in isolated fairways...however according to theory it is more comfortable/strategic being on the edge of the trees as opposed to in the middle of a tree lined fairway...not a very safe position.

On a similar note, there is also a human desire to discover what is around the bend...it could be a path through the trees or a river the bends around or the other side of a hill. These are often scenes depicted in paintings.

There is also the phenomenon of coming from isolation to vast openness. One of the most stimulating walks in golf is the narrow winding path through the trees at CPC that ends with breathtaking view of the vast Pacific. IMO variey is the way go...it appears this was the case at PV before the trees took over....a combination of isolation and open panaramas.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 01:34:50 PM by Tom MacWood »

Sam Sikes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2004, 02:26:34 PM »
I have been wondering the same thing about hole isolation and its prominence in modern course architecture.  Why aren't there any "good" courses being built on 150 acres or less.  I loved the intimate feel of the back nine at SFGC, and also at Fenway.  Has our society become so litigious that liability underscores many classic design principles, or were the courses built on limited acreage a virtue of limited resources at the time?  On the other hand, I also like courses that feature both isolation and intimacy.  I know the Honors is on a pretty large piece of property, but there are several instances where you get excellent views of what is to come, and what ate your lunch earlier that day.  Furthermore, can anyone honestly say they don't enjoy the imaginitive recovery shots that can be played over, through, and around huge trees from an adjacent fairway.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 02:34:16 PM by Sam Sikes »

TEPaul

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2004, 06:56:27 AM »
One probably won't find more explanatory reasons from the "Golden Age" of architecture for trees on a golf course than this;

"The pleasantest type of course is one where the holes are segregated, that is where the hole you happen to be playng is well apart from the others. In order to have this kind of course it is necessary to secure property that is already wooded or to do considerable planting of trees.

The old idea was to have golf courses as free of trees as possible. This notion, no doubt, was imported from Scotland because when golf was first taken up in the United States we knew very little about the game and modeled our courses on those of the Scotch which were, for the most part, built along the seashore where there were no trees.

It is impossible to conceive that the "Canny Scots" would have denuded their courses of trees if there had been any there originally.

Today the old ideas have been discarded and the prevailing belief is that trees, most emphatically, have a fixed place on a golf course. This is true for many reasons:
       
First-Because there are few, if any, sites available that are devoid of trees and it is a very costly operation to cut them down and remove them.

Second-Trees add beauty to a golf course forming picturesque backgrounds and delightful vistas.

Third-Their shade is most refreshing on a hot summer day.

Fourth-They are of great practical value in segregating the various holes."

"Golf Course Architecture and Construction"
         Selecting the Property
             By William Flynn
         USGA Green Section
                July, 1927

William Flynn was an early practitioner of golf architecture and greenkeeping from the early days of golf beginning at Merion Cricket Club in 1911. Meron East did not originally have trees segregating holes (before construction) and as most know the golf course was constructed on property that was and is 126 acres in total, including club facilities. Consequently Merion East should be considered a tight and parallel hole golf course where room between holes for trees has never existed. William Flynn, and his partner Howard Toomey too, were both early members of Pine Valley G.C as were their Merion employers and clients Hugh and Alan Wilson. It's fairly well known that Merion "lent" Flynn's services to Pine Valley following Crump's death to construct the final holes of PVGC that were unfinished at the time of Crump's death in Jan 1918. One could probably logically assume that Flynn got his ideas on trees on golf courses somewhere and as that was still early in his career one could assume with his close connection to PVGC that's probably the most likely place he would've developed those ideas cited above about trees on golf courses and how to use them to segregate golf holes, particularly golf courses that had existing trees before construction. As everyone knows, Pine Valley was George Crump's golf course and daily project from the very beginning and so if one could logically assume the idea of using trees at PVGC to segregate holes had to come from somewhere, it's probably logical to assume the idea was Crump's!

Of course as some on this website point out if nothing can be found that specifically quotes Crump directly as stating he intended to segregate the holes on his course by using both routing width and trees that fact can never be proven---despite all the evidence to the contrary!   ;)
« Last Edit: December 09, 2004, 07:16:29 AM by TEPaul »

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2004, 07:20:03 AM »
   Tom:
         THANK YOU!!  THANK YOU!!  THANK YOU!!

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2004, 07:28:44 AM »
I think that in country club settings, it is actually not desirable to have every hole in its own corridor of isolation.  I think that part of the charm and fun of belonging to a club is socializing and being in contact with fellow members, as one plays.  Isn't it more fun to be playing in your club men's league or just playing on a day and look a couple of fairways off to see friends enjoying themselves, hooting at making a good pitch or putt, etc.?  

I think the whole phenomenon of holes in isolation is a reaction to hectic urban living.  That is why everyone goes ga-ga for the trips to the islolated courses like Sand Hills and Sutton Bay, and the others of that ilk.  Not only the holes are in isolation and you get the feeling of having the whole course to yourself, but you just plain "get away" when going there.  

No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2004, 08:19:06 AM »
 Tom,
     I think you may be developing a worthwhile distinction. Isolation through the use of trees is better on courses with more acreage. The attempt to separate holes with trees on courses with little space quickly becomes planting in the line of recovery. I have read that Flynn comment many times. He seems to be sensitive to "nice" trees that are on courses during construction,believing he can adjust the tee or even the green angle. But, the majority of his discussion there is about trees well out of play.

  If you had included the next paragraph in that article you would have touched on his statement about "strategy" and trees.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2004, 08:27:40 AM by Mike_Malone »
AKA Mayday

T_MacWood

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2004, 08:19:32 AM »
Jim
I know you have been one of the few who supports the recent tree planting at ANGC. How would you  compare/contrast the reasons for planting those ANGC trees with Flynn thoughts on trees?

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2004, 08:46:54 AM »
 Tom MacWood,
   
    Mr. Coleman thinks that Flynn quote affirms his views on trees on courses;I am not sure he read it thoughtfully.
AKA Mayday

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2004, 09:08:02 AM »
   Tom:
        It doesn't appear that Flynn's discussion of trees in this excerpt addresses the rationale behind Augusta's tree planting - using trees to increase the importance of hitting a good shot (or, looking at the glass as half empty, to more properly penalize the poorly struck shot).  But that doesn't mean that Flynn's list is exclusionary.  I continue to believe that trees can and should be used to add to the challenge of a hole.  Not that every tree planting is done correctly.  But there are many on this cite who believe that every tree planting is done incorrectly.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2004, 09:15:18 AM »
 Mr. Coleman,
     I think that list approaches "exclusionary". Jim, if you were to examine the massive tree planting done at Rolling Green before the 1937 aerial you can see how those ideas were implemented.

    Jim, I think you will have a problem bringing Flynn along with you on your views about tree planting to "make holes harder". I am sitting  here thinking,whom should I listen to?  The wrIting and actual work of Flynn or your concepts--it is a tough choice.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2004, 09:39:04 AM by Mike_Malone »
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2004, 09:37:48 AM »
"If you had included the next paragraph in that article you would have touched on his statement about "strategy" and trees"

Mike, you are wrong.  The next paragraph does not refer to to anything to do with strategy and trees.  Immediately following the last paragraph that Tom Paul quoted, the essay refers to the location of the clubhouse, water, and finally self-contained acreage at the end of the essay.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2004, 09:39:16 AM by Wayne Morrison »

T_MacWood

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2004, 09:39:46 AM »
Jim
Bob Jones was an admirer of the Old  Course and its strategic requirements.  Jones felt American courses were generally too penal in nature--hazards (including trees) were placed to penalize which created a single safe route and limited choice. The result was an unthinking player who had the ability to play only one way.
 
In contrast St. Andrews provided choice and required decision making, the fairway were wide and the greens were firm and naturally undulating.  When he and MacKenzie set out to design ANGC British seaside golf and St. Andrews were their models—the result being a golf course with significant width and minimal hazards, strategically placed. A design that stimulated strategic thought & provided options (as opposed to “penalizing a poorly struck shot”).

Are Fazio’s new trees and rough consistent with the strategic design ideals of Jones and MacKenzie?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2004, 10:07:59 AM by Tom MacWood »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2004, 09:43:15 AM »
 Wayne,
      I left my book at home, but I just read that the other night. I was not trying to say Tom was wrong, just saying it would have been neat if he had shown more. It is possible that it is two paragraphs. I recommend oatmeal as the best breakfast;it may be the solution to that orneryness.
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2004, 10:20:58 AM »
 From Linc Roden's Feature Interview. I guess he edited the article




Here is what Flynn said about trees:

'The pleasantest type of course is one where the holes are segregated, that is where the hole you happen to be playing is well apart from the others. In order to have this kind of course it is necessary to secure property that is already wooded or to do considerable planting of trees.' (Italics are Linc’s.)

' The old idea was to have golf courses as free from trees as possible. This notion, no doubt, was imported from Scotland because when golf was first taken up in the United States we knew very little about the game and modeled our courses on those of the Scots which were, for the most part, built along the seashore where there were no trees.

'It is impossible to conceive that the 'Canny Scots' would have denuded their courses of trees if there had been any there originally. As a race they are entirely too thrifty for any such waste as that.

'Today the old ideas have been discarded and the prevailing belief is that trees, most emphatically, have a fixed place on a golf course. This is true for many reasons:

First—Because there are few, if any, sites available that are devoid of trees and it is a costly operation to cut them down and remove them.
Second—Trees add beauty to a course forming picturesque backgrounds and delightful vistas.
Third—Their shade is most refreshing on a hot summer day.
Fourth—They are of great practical value in segregating various holes.'
'It might also be that moving a tee slightly to the right or left precludes the necessity of taking out some beautiful tree. This also applies to green sites. Sometimes a slight change in the alignment of the hole permits the architect to keep a specimen tree or trees which may also act as a key turning point in the hole.'

Source: Flynn articles in USGA Green Section Record, 1927.

AKA Mayday

Brent Hutto

Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2004, 10:32:38 AM »
FWIW, I agree completely with the opinions Flynn expressed in the quoted piece. To which I'd add that an appreciation for the merits of wooded golf courses in no way renders one unable to appreciate the charm of wide-open courses as well.

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2004, 10:43:50 AM »
I think a lot of golfers more “safe" with these corridors of isolation - not unlike a narrowed fairway offers a more defined target for the player.

I feel that when opening up (or re-opening up) these fairways especially on the older courses, even the better players tend to spray the ball a lot more. I think some better golfers subconsciously feel "safer" with these widths and start swinging a bit harder, hence, the often wilder tee-ball even for the more accurate player......  of course that leads to what we have all discussed, the more interesting angles of play into greens and the greenside bunkering becoming more of a factor.

Most of us grew up (well some of us grew up - hah)  with the isolated fairways many of which evolved from the 50's and 60's architecture and the open vista look and the wider fairways are something we are becoming more comfortable with and understanding more.

gb
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2004, 10:45:33 AM »
Brian,
This thread reminded me of the writeup here on Mid Pines
The Link
The first picture's commentary says: With the underbrush at Mid Pines cleared, the golfer is afforded a view of several holes at once, a highly desirable feature.

Maybe isolation is desirable and good at some courses (i.e. Pine Valley) and a wide open view of the course is desirable and good at others (Old Course).
Tom Mac, interesting comments.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2004, 10:45:55 AM by Andy Hughes »
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2004, 01:01:55 PM »
Tom:
    Do you believe Jones and McK. envisioned the 15th hole being reached with an 8 iron?  I suspect not.
    I simply do not agree that the ONLY consideration in helping a golf course grow with the times is "whether the architect did it 75 years ago."  And I find it particularly annoying when today's cognicenti claim to KNOW that an architect who'd been dead 40 years would never allow what's being done to his course.  Would Jones and McK. be happy if it took 20 under to win the Masters every year - like Tuscon.  I suspect not.
    There are no RIGHT or WRONG answers here, there just aren't.  Adding a few strategic trees to tighten up a hole is a legitimate method of maintaining the challenge of a course.  Some may like it; some may not; it can be done well; it can be done poorly.  But to arrogantly say I KNOW what the original architect would do today is irrelevant to me.  My only question is whether the hole is better or not after the change, and I am perfectly competant to have an opinion on that issue.  In my limited experience in dealing with "restoration specialists" (and I've attended sessions with Silva and a Force associate), none have ever told me I was WRONG when I expressed an opinion.  I cannot say the same for my friend who speaks to Flynn on a nightly basis.