The Most Architecturally Important Parts of the Course

[James Bennett]

I noted Tom Doak's comments about the amount of time just walking around and preplanning a new site.  

Last night, on 'Lost', Lock (knife-wielding adventurist from the collections company) was commenting to his young apprentice on the need for contemplation.  He gave the example of Michaelangelo and the significant amount of time  that he spent looking at the 3 metre column of marble(was it several months).  When he finally started sculpting, the Statue of David emerged.  But it was the result of hours and hours of pre-planning and imaging.  

I hope this was not a Hollywood version of history.  

This episode was probably played a few weeks ago in the USA.  Whilst Oz is ahead on the timeclock, we are generally behind on the soapies release.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

It seems to me that the importance of designing recovery shots is intimately connected with your distinction between designing a hole from the outside/in rather than inside/out. (That is a distinction you make, isn't it? )

I take it that distinction plays out in the field by starting from the edges (from which recoveries will be hit). Only after you are happy with those locations do you set a centerline stake. That is, the location of the landing area centerline is derived from a sort of triangulation of interesting recovery locations at the edges of the hole corridor.

The idea being that designing recovery shots is not an afterthought. To the contrary, it is one of the first things you do. Or am I missing something?

Bob
 

[Tom_Doak]

Bob and Rich:

Most architects just go right to the pole in the middle of the fairway at 800 feet (or 850 or 900) from the back tee, and look at the approach shot from there.  I've been guilty of that myself at Sebonack ... but Jack is usually driving the vehicle.

Don't misunderstand me, Jack tries harder than anyone I've met to create multiple strategies for each shot.  If anything, he tries too hard.  Every hole has a strategy that only works if you can carry something 250 or 280 yards from the tee, and a couple of alternate landing areas if you can't; and then most of the longer holes have optional landing areas for the second shot defined by bunkers, too.  But he still tends to look at the options for the second shot assuming you've got to Position A with your tee shot.

On other courses we've done it differently.  At Riverfront in VA, I remember specifically telling Eric Iverson to look at the green sites from twenty yards left of the pole and twenty yards right, and try to make the approach shot really different from those two spots.  At Pacific Dunes, we did not put in poles in the landing areas at all, because I didn't want to be too conscious of one particular landing zone in a climate where the wind had so much effect on driving distance.  In hindsight I should probably do that all the time ... in fact, I've noticed when walking Bill Coore's construction sites that there is usually not a pole in the landing area, I'm always asking how far some feature is from the tee because there is no reference stake.

[Mike Hendren]

Rich,

Is your premise a blanket indictment of "desert" golf?

Mike

[George Pazin]

Rich,

Is your premise a blanket indictment of "desert" golf?

Mike

I almost posted on this thread yesterday and said that it is an excellent explanation of why I dislike desert golf so much.

I don't know who should be more frightened - me that I think like Mike, or Mike that he thinks like me.

[RJ_Daley]

James, I think that the Michaelangelo method of studying the marble block is well documented in Irving Stone's, "Agony and Ecstacy".  

But, the inward contemplation of the marble and what can come out might be slightly off from the point of view of the task at hand for the diligent golf archie.  In his case, the Michaelangelo analogy might yield wizardry of design of the "inside the ropes" contours and nuances of the property.  Perhaps a Maxwell rolls sort of wizardry of the internal focus of the greens.  

But, I wonder if proportionality of the proposed statue played a role in Buonarotti's David or Pieta in terms of where the statue was contemplated to be displayed.  Considerations for the setting of the masterpiece as to the periphery and environment would seem to me to be more analogous to the GCA examining the outlying terrain.

I haven't been there... only seen photos, but for those of you who have, might we say Doak's Rawls course has a great deal of detail and design consideration focused in rough areas and seperation corridors between holes, to yield recovery and exact defined judicious penalty without death?

[ForkaB]

Bob and Rich:

Most architects just go right to the pole in the middle of the fairway at 800 feet (or 850 or 900) from the back tee, and look at the approach shot from there.  I've been guilty of that myself at Sebonack ... but Jack is usually driving the vehicle.

Don't misunderstand me, Jack tries harder than anyone I've met to create multiple strategies for each shot.  If anything, he tries too hard.  Every hole has a strategy that only works if you can carry something 250 or 280 yards from the tee, and a couple of alternate landing areas if you can't; and then most of the longer holes have optional landing areas for the second shot defined by bunkers, too.  But he still tends to look at the options for the second shot assuming you've got to Position A with your tee shot.

On other courses we've done it differently.  At Riverfront in VA, I remember specifically telling Eric Iverson to look at the green sites from twenty yards left of the pole and twenty yards right, and try to make the approach shot really different from those two spots.  At Pacific Dunes, we did not put in poles in the landing areas at all, because I didn't want to be too conscious of one particular landing zone in a climate where the wind had so much effect on driving distance.  In hindsight I should probably do that all the time ... in fact, I've noticed when walking Bill Coore's construction sites that there is usually not a pole in the landing area, I'm always asking how far some feature is from the tee because there is no reference stake.

Tom

Is it not more realistic to look at a "fan" shape from the 250-280 "pole" rather than 20 yards right or left?  In my Foxy example, I would expect that the distance to the pin from a swing of roughly the same speed (but of differring quality of execution) would vary from 150 yards (perfect tee shot) to 250 yards (pull hook), with all numbers in between being very possible.

[ForkaB]

Rich,

Is your premise a blanket indictment of "desert" golf?

Mike

Mike

I'm OK with "desert" golf--I just don't think it can be "great" golf if you get free drops out of the saguaros in order to protect venomous reptiles.  What I am happy to indict is "dessert" golf, whose philosophy is "every shot should be the creme de la creme brulee!"

[Adam_F_Collins]

Most architects just go right to the pole in the middle of the fairway at 800 feet (or 850 or 900) from the back tee, and look at the approach shot from there.  I've been guilty of that myself at Sebonack ... but Jack is usually driving the vehicle.

Hahahahaha. That's funny, Tom.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Bill Coore and those who created Hidden Creek say they intentionally did a course that had very little "WOW" factor---and that they knew that some may not understand it or appreciate it. this course just doesn't look hard to play and score on----but there's no question it certainly can be and perhaps most of the time and particularly most of the time in precisely what you're talking about here---recovery from places where most players miss the ball.

To recover from places where many golfers miss the ball on courses like Merion, HVGC and PVGC the shots are "pulse quickening"--- At Hidden Creek there is very little of that---eg what you have to do or can do looks multi-optional and fairly simple to execute. But it's not---it just isn't because of all these subtle little breaks and borrows and shifts and almost imperceptible twists and turns in those generally big greens. You may even hit the recovery you visualize and instead of having a 2-3 ft putt you have a 10-15 ft putt time after time which of course most of you don't make ---even if you miss within those greens and far from the pin.

Bill Coore always said he thinks this course is harder to score on than the other great one they built simultaneously---Friar's Head. I think this description is why he feels that way.

To use a bloody analogy---most all golfers can see on "pulse quickening" courses like HVGC, Merion and PVGC that they can and do open you up with a machete and make you bleed all over the place if you miss in the wrong places. But with Hidden Creek, it tends to constantly nick you, almost impercetpibly with little razor blades (the size and nuancy architecture of the greens themselves) hole after hole if you miss your approaches somehow. But in the end the net effect may be somewhat similar to the others---you can bleed a lot (lose strokes) but perhaps just little by little. If you're playing decent and concentrating decently at Hidden Creek I bet there are few of the so-called "others" that Merion, HVGC, PVGC often extract from even very good players.

My bet is there are ton of golfers who play Hidden Creek who probably say, day after day "I thought I hit the ball well but for some reason I didn't get much out of it"

There are a few former members of Hidden Creek who were, should I say, of rather generous egos who actually quit the club because they said they didn't like the greens---that they were driving them crazy, they 3 putted so often!

Is it any wonder? These were not sophisticated golfers in the little "differences" in golf architecture Coore sometimes speak of. It takes a sophisticated golfer to really understand the beauty and the "score meaning" of the architecture of Hidden Creek. The same cannot be said about Merion, HVGC and PVGC. What's good to great about them is not hard at all to see. Most, even the unsophisticated in the little differences and nuances of golf architecture, tend to pick it up on the latter almost immediately.

Hansen and Coore and Crenshaw took a bit of a chance with Hidden Creek this way and they knew it going in and they know it now. I, for one, am very glad they did---I admire them for doing it that way.

Tom Paul touches on a lot of interesting stuff here. Do you think that a course requires its challenges to be more "in your face" to be considered a great course by the masses? Do you think that subtle difficulties are better or worse for a courses overall reputation?

Where is the balance between subtlety and obvious challenge?

[BCrosby]

If you substitue "TOC" for "Hidden Creek" in Tom's post, you get something pretty close to MacKenzie's description of TOC in his Spirit of St. Andrews.

He loved TOC for similar reasons. He also thought it superior to other famous courses for similar reasons.

Bob

P.S. Which raises the question, who is TEP, really?

[Mike_Cirba]

If you substitue "TOC" for "Hidden Creek" in Tom's post, you get pretty close to MacKenzie's description of TOC in his Spirit of St. Andrews.

He loved TOC for similar reasons. He also thought it superior to other famous courses for similar reasons.

Bob

P.S. Which raises the question, who is TEP, really?

Most of the approach shots on TOC are far more visually demanding than HC, and that visual cue is borne in reality as well.

Ditto for the tee shots at TOC.  Even the blind ones hide nests of random bunkers.  

The comparision is a rather large stretch.  

[George Pazin]

Tom Paul touches on a lot of interesting stuff here. Do you think that a course requires its challenges to be more "in your face" to be considered a great course by the masses?

Unfortunately, yes.

Do you think that subtle difficulties are better or worse for a courses overall reputation?

Unfortunately, worse.

I've been meaning to start a thread addressing these very issues, but haven't had the chance. Maybe this will force me to....

[BCrosby]

My comparison is not between HC and TOC. Never played HC.

My comparison is between what MacK and TEP liked about the two courses.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Bob,

Thanks, I understand and I really just meant to point out that TOC has amazing subtleties, yes, but it also has a penal, visually intimidating and often perplexing aspect that I think is missing at HC.  

Sorry for the confusion as I tried to post too quickly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mke Cirba,

Would you point out to me the visual intimidation on the approach shot at the 18th hole at TOC ?  
I must have missed it.

I found very few of the approaches at TOC visually intimidating.  I found far more intimidating approaches at Turnberry, Prestwick and other courses in Scotland.

Not one approach at TOC came within universes of the approaches at the 5th or 17th at Bandon Dunes, or the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 18th at Pine Valley or the 4th, 12th or 18th at Hidden Creek.

Perhaps your perceptions are unique to lefties, or are influenced by your desire to avoid chipping.  

As to Rich Goodale's topic, I'm inclined to agree with Mark Fine.   Hazards seem to dictate the play of the golf course, and would seem to me to be a vital component, having a more dramatic impact on the play of the golf course than any other feature.