Shot Defintion Revisited

[Adam_F_Collins]

The other day, I had a wonderful telephone conversation with TEPaul (my first actual conversation with another GCAer). We covered a lot of ground in a half an hour or so, but one aspect stuck in my mind, and that was the idea of "shot definition" in golf course design. This might also be described as "framing" or whatever, but what it adds up to is a very prescribed path through the course.

Tommy Paul was telling me about a discussion with Bill Coore in which they talked about wide fairways which allowed the golfer to decide where to put the ball, rather than having the location defined by framing bunkers and a tight fairway.

It makes some sense why this trend toward framing every shot developed. Economical concerns and mathematical averages for the distances of different clubs would certainly move things in that direction over time, but how much is too much? And how much is too little?

I told Tom that I felt that there were natural definitions present in a raw piece of property. I also feel that there are natural "framings" and "views" and areas which are more desirable to the human eye to look at and be drawn toward. I believe that there is a certain necessity for some definition in course design - some visual targets and places you can send your ball toward and feel that rush of adrenaline when you watch it touch down to safety.

But how much is too much?

When Mr. Paul and myself were talking, I pointed out the difference between a book and a movie - people usually like a book better. Why? Because our experience wiht a book is much more interactive. We create much of what we find in a book. A book gives us enough to guide us and stimulate our imaginations, yet does not dictate so much as to stifle our involvement.

A movie is much more restrictive. It adds images, motion, timing and sound - and dictates much more of the story to us.

The best course would be more like a book.

Any thoughts?

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

A half hour conversation with TEPaul is the equivalent of leaving a voice mail message with the rest of the world.

I viewed Bill Coore's remarks a little differently.

Bill stated that the developer, Roger Hansen, gave him the freedom to design what he chose, and as such, Bill felt that he'd rather not dictate shots, but rather, have them evolve through natural progression or choice.

While there are wide playing corridors, there are prefered lanes and lanes to be avoided within those corridors.

I think Bill wanted the golfer to craft and/or define his shot rather than have the architect do it.

With respect to framing, they deliberately cut the woods further back near the greens, just to avoid the feel of framing.

Bill indicated that they defend the golf course, through design from the green back to the tee, and by providing great diversity in the greens it leads to greater diversity in the approaches and recoveries.

I understood Bill to say that he likes to combine that philosophy with the presentation of awkward lies through the green in an attempt to enhance variety, uncertainty and difficulty in selecting an approach or recovery.