[Adam_F_Collins]

How do we tie this in to the routing of the course?

Is it possible to overkill the forced carry proposition? How many blind shots are tolerable?

I like the "vicarious adventure" statement, but how do we balance that with, what I see as, the intellectual challenge of playing golf. Not high-level intellect, but I want to find the best way to utilize my abilities to get around a course and that's a mental exam. Does that portion (the strategic element) evolve during the "designing up" of a hole/course.

You're making me think here, and I appreciate that.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the "intellectual" challenge of strategic play is the "higher level" of the enjoyment of the game of golf.

I'm going to guess that most people start with the more "primitive" approach which is a simple process of identifying a desire line or a "line of charm" (often boiling down to little more than the shortest route between two points) and taking a whack at it. This aspect is what I have outlined above - and I believe at the most essential core of what's fun about the game - that vicarious adventure achieved by sending the ball ahead of us and following it.

But as a golfer learns to play, he or she also begins to form an awareness of their own unique make-up as a golfer (and some might say - as a human being) We begin to recognize our strengths and weaknesses. We (can) become ever more acutely aware of the ODDS of making the ball do something we want it to do.

With this recognition of the odds comes the development of strategy and an appreciation for the allowance of such strategy in the layout of a golf course. As we reach a better understanding of our own unique game - we come to know our own options as players and look for applications of those options in the design of the hole.

For example, it isn't until a golfer can drive a ball 300 yards, that he begins to criticize a hole which doesn't allow him the room to do so. Conversely, a golfer who KNOWS that he can hit no further than 80 yards is unlikely to see a 'challenge' when facing a 420 yard hole requiring a forced carry of 180 yards to reach the fairway - the golfer's knowledge of their own game defines the hole as simply impossible from the start - and thus for him, a poor design.

It seems to me that an awareness, or a true empathy for golfers of a great variety of games is required in order to develop truly "great" golf courses. The architect has to be able to "see" or "envision" the landscape from a variety of imagined perspectives: The Big-Ball Hitter on the tee, The Newbie in the rough, The Old Gal in a bunker, The Junior, The Pro, etc. etc.

Each of these players has different levels of skill and has different odds of playing a shot successfully. Therefore, their strategy must vary accordingly - the best courses allow for the greatest variety of viable strategies.

I believe - from my distant vantage point, that this is why TOC has stood the test of time and long been seen as the greatest model of GCA. It allows for a great variety of possible "correct" solutions.

As I've said in another thread, some courses are more like a movie - dictating the adventure, the better courses are like a book - allowing you to make up a lot of it on your own.

We always appreciate our own creative solutions. Great golf courses allow for that.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam:

I've been away for a few days, but honestly, I don't remember a thread in the entire history of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com (what is it now about six years?) that has made me really think as much as this one.

Good show, Pal.

Hehehe.

Well Tom, coming from a guy with over 19,000 posts, that means a lot - I can't wait to hear some more of your thoughts on this.

[Adam_F_Collins]

To some of the other points regarding blind shots and over-use of forced carries:

So let's assume that we see the golf ball as an extension of ourselves, and consider that with an awareness of our own abilities comes an ability to assess the 'odds' of hitting a shot.

An enjoyable round of golf finds the right balance of tension and relaxation over the whole course. What is a thrill once or twice in a round can become annoying if required of us ten times. Beyond that, we are also aware of the odds that even the best ball striker will hit into the water eventually if he's required to make enough attempts at carrying. We don't like it when the odds are stacked too heavily against us.

This idea of the odds is interesting to me - and I think it might be very much tied to the better golfers' assessment of a golf course as well. It goes to a more intellectual or mathematical aspect of our thinking, but one as important as the more primitive side which I outlined in the first part of this thread. I think the two interweave in our appreciation of GCA.

Blind holes are often most thrilling when you know what lies beyond. There is a unique thrill which lies in an "estimation" of the target line and a special feeling we get when we feel that we've struck the ball sweetly and we watch it fly - estimating and re-estimating its flight in relation to our memory of what lies beyond. You follow after it, over the rise and compare your vision to the reality - will it be as good? Worse? Or even better?

Hitting a blind shot the first time is certainly a potential for enjoyment, but I don't think it is one which is as popular because of our basic fear and uneasiness of what we can't see. Sure, there is a sense of discovery, but when we discover that the blindness caused us to put ourselves in trouble - we feel robbed, or somehow done wrong by the architect. These points tend to wake us to the fact that the environment is unnatural - arranged by man, and we are often at that moment unhappy about it. Not good...

[TEPaul]

"JES II - Excellent points.
You make me rethink what I've said and I must add:
I guess it's not just following the ball that we do in golf - that is too simplistic and you make me realize that. The ball also provides us with a chance for "vicarious adventure" in that it is an extension of ourselves, AND IT CAN FLY!!! I know it sounds childish in a way - but it's true."

Adam:

Firstly, it's nice to see someone on here say to someone else, 'you make me rethink what I've said'. That's pretty rare on this website. Most on here say something and defend what they say to the nth degree despite what anyone else says in response.

Personally, I don't think just following the golf ball with a walk is what's so fascinating about golf, although I guess I could certainly understand if some feel that way.

There most certainly is some 'vicarious adventure' in hitting a golf ball successfully but what that 'vicarious adventure' is truly all about is certainly one of the most inscrutable and ongoing mysteries about the game or sport of golf. That the golf ball flies over things or skitters along the ground and we can't or don't may be part of it and is probably a huge subject for another day.

Obviously taking a walk across an interesting piece of land is a nice thing to do for the enjoyment of what you're seeing or feeling or getting from it but to me there's never been any contest involved in a walk unless I'm attempting to count my steps for some reason from point A to Point B taking into consideration the physical problems of the geography.

I feel the fact that we can propel a stationary ball with such seemingly odd implements and with the fairly odd motion we use the various distances and specific directions we sometimes can is perhaps the true underlying seduction of golf for most. Otherwise people probably wouldn't enjoy the time they practice as much as they do.

Then take that separate fascination or even "vicarious adventure' (perhaps mostly that the ball can fly or skitter along the ground as it does and we can't) and put that on a golf course where these various contests begin, with a human opponent, with the land and even with numbers and obvoiusly there's a lot going on----a lot of adventures, a lot of differing sensibilities, some vicarious and others pretty damn personal.  

There's potentially a lot to think about and talk about in a thread like this. If we start to break golf down into all it's component parts and then apply them to golf courses and architecture the discussion and the stories could become almost endless. Some of those things probably are extensions of ourselves in some ways and others really aren't, at least in my opinion. Personally I've never thought of my golf clubs and the balls I use as extensions of myself but maybe others do. This idea of "be the ball" is one of the funniest and most ludicrous I've ever heard.  

As Behr said about a few things to do with golf architecture, 'they are independent of us', is probably a lot of what makes for the fascinating and adventurous "contests" involved in golf.

But then all this must be why golf intriques some of us so---if it's anything it certainly isn't simple or easy to understand all the reasons why it can be so fascinating to so many.  

[wsmorrison]

Wonderful thread.  Thank you to all the contributors.  Very well thought out and extremely thought provoking.

I do think that an outstanding talent can lead to vantages where they might not travel unless gently encouraged to do so.  The Flynn course at Pocantico Hills on the Rockefeller estate is one such example.  The family had resided on the grounds for several decades by the time Flynn redesigned the golf course, yet he took them to places on the golf journey that were seldom if ever visited.  John D. Rockefeller, Jr. wrote Flynn after the completion of the course:

"A little more than a year has passed since you completed construction of an eighteen-hole reversible golf course for us at Pocantico Hills.  Nature has completely obliterated the scars which the work necessitated and the lawns were never more beautiful.  You have built for us a completely modern up-to-date, sporting golf course.  But you have done far more.  By your skill in designing the course, you have led the player to the most charming viewpoints, many of which were seldom visited before, while as a result of your ability in adapting the course to the surrounding area, you have made it seem like something natural to the place rather than an intrusion and a blemish.  both in design and execution, the enterprise has been carried through with a high order of taste, ability, and painstaking care.  The result is most satisfactory, and I cannot speak too highly of what you and your organization have done for us."

[Adam_F_Collins]

This is certainly a thread of ideas, and it concerns some which I've considered on and off but have been unable to articulate clearly enough on my own. But I think that this type of wandering and wondering can lead to further insights, and therefore a deeper enjoyment of this game that serves as the common ground for us all. I'm glad that so many of you are giving it a shot.

Now too often, in such threads, our wandering leads us in many directions - sometimes breaking up the focus and the energy and causing it all to fizzle out. Therefore, I'm going to attempt to pull it back together - at least in terms of the points I've raised myself - in order to keep things going.

I'm saying:

• There ARE naturally occurring "shot definitions" and the best architecture preserves and utilizes them.
 
• There are things about natural land that we "naturally" find "beautiful" and there are "natural" paths that we prefer to walk when traversing a piece of property, and the best architecture preserves and utilizes such paths and minimizes the use of paths which we 'naturally abhor.

• Is some senses, the golf ball is an extension of ourselves as we play a round of golf. We don't feel the same way about seeing someone else's ball perish in a marsh as we do our own.

• The golf ball allows us the chance for a "vicarious adventure" - we influence it's actions, yet it goes where we cannot. The thrills and spills of golf have to do with the ball - we influence it's action and watch the results before us.

• As a golfer becomes proficient enough to assess their own abilities, they also become aware of the "odds" of successfully accomplishing a given shot. With an awareness of "odds" comes the ability to play "strategically" - and to appreciate the strategic merits of a given design.

• A golfer will assess the merits of a design based on whether it allows for the use of the particular golfer's preferred strategy for a given situation, IN COMBINATION WITH how close or far from the natural "lines" of charm of the lands itself are followed.

******

Good points Wayne

Of course, given the fact that a golf course often moves back and forth upon itself in a relatively contained area, the architect will necessarily be forced to look deeper for vantage points, hazards and 'lines of charm' - he can certainly discover new treasures in the process.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Do you completely understand what some of the old totally natural "paths of least (or greatest) resistance" golf courses were like that were wholly natural landforms simply because they basically preceded the inception of man-made architecture?

I'm not too sure something like the most ideal vantage point was even remotely part of those types of wholly natural golf courses, and if and when it was it could've been the result of accidental occurence or happenstance as much as anything else. We do need to remember too that golfers before about 1875 could not stray more than a certain amount of club lengths from the previous hole (cup) to tee off on the next hole!  

But we certainly do know that many golf course architects today select (or make) holes that rely almost entirely on the most ideal vantage point. Fazio is probably as good at that as any architect ever has been but there certainly are many many others who do that today or have in the past.

But does that make for the best and most natural golf or golf courses? Does that make for the most interesting natural "lines of charm" and "lines of Instinct"?"

Those are the questions.

As Max Behr mentioned the dimension of height is basically the "hazard dimension".

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

As you know, Flynn built up 8 or 9 natural-looking vantage points at Indian Creek Country Club.  In fact, he built up the whole golf course from the four foot level island created by the Army Corps of Engineers in some places up to 35 feet high.  These man-made vantage points might well be the earliest attempt in golf architecture, predating the stadium courses popularized by the TPC courses of today.  The views around the golf course seem to be the primary purpose but the views of Biscayne Bay and the growing city of Miami were also an intended result.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

That very well may be so. As you know, I think, as perhaps you do too, that Flynn might have been one of the earliest dedicated "framers" in golf architecture.

My point is, that in very early and very natural golf "framing" was something that was probably never even thought of. In my opinion, the idea, concept or principle of "framing" in golf architecture is an off-shoot of one of the "Art Principles" in the art of landscape architecture known as "Emphasis".

The definition (from Cornish and Whitten) of "Emphasis" as an "art principle" is to draw the eye to the most important part of the arrangement.

As you know I'm not a big fan of that concept of drawing the eye to the most important part of the arrangement ("Emphasis) in golf course architecture, and I'm most certainly not a fan of it if the most important part is always where the golfer is supposed to hit the golf ball.  

[TEPaul]

But Wayne, if Flynn really was one of the first of the dedicated "framers" in golf course architecture it seems to me if he did use the "art priniciple" of "Emphasis" (drawing the eye to the most important part) or was even aware of it, that he certainly primarily did that at the green-end and by no means consistently at the tee.

I just can't believe that the amount of clearly utilized visual "misdirections" he got into off the tee as to the ideal strategies, that we have seen so much of, could possibly be just coincidental.

But once you came to pick up on some of his visual "misdirections" from the tee and the best place to go for the next shot or mostly the best spot for the best shot into the green, the way he seemed to frequently set up his greens was certainly not that unobvious as to where to try to go.

In a real sense this is a good example of what Max Behr sometimes referred to as a hole's "strategic unity". As a good example of what Behr meant by that was his example of how some feature on a par 5 at the green-end could and would influence the golfer as to his choice of what to do on the tee and on the second shot to get into position to deal with that feature on his third shot.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Tom Paul,

Let me get things straight here.

You're talking about "vantage points" not being of any real concern to early architects. And "Art principles" and "emphasis" being the reasons that "framing" comes into Golf course architecture.

Let's go step by step here:

>>"Do you completely understand what some of the old totally natural "paths of least (or greatest) resistance" golf courses were like that were wholly natural landforms simply because they basically preceded the inception of man-made architecture?"<<

This is a bit unclear to me. I can't say that I understand your question well enough to answer it. Could you reword it?

>>"I'm not too sure something like the most ideal vantage point was even remotely part of those types of wholly natural golf courses (and later...) "...we certainly do know that many golf course architects today select (or make) holes that rely almost entirely on the most ideal vantage point."<<

You seem to be reducing much of my discussion to simply "vantage points" - or, as I take it "good views". This is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that there are areas within a piece of land which we are naturally drawn to as creatures of the earth. We like views because they make us feel more aware of our surroundings. We also are interested in landforms like rocks, water, etc. We naturally dislike difficult walks, such as steep uphill climbs or thick brush. I'm saying that an architects awareness of such likes and dislikes can help him or her to make a better golf course. Sometimes it might be in catering to these natural likes or dislikes - but I'll add (after reading your thoughts on Flynn's 'misdirections') that they might also purposefully go against these natural desires in order to create tensions and disorientations - to confuse us or confound us.

>>"My point is, that in very early and very natural golf "framing" was something that was probably never even thought of. In my opinion, the idea, concept or principle of "framing" in golf architecture is an off-shoot of one of the "Art Principles" in the art of landscape architecture known as "Emphasis".<<

You're most certainly correct on both counts. My point is that there are natural "desire lines" and "pleasing vantage points" which are more elemental to the human organism - and thus precede the "art principles" you mention.

But we should remember that there are many artistic principles which even the earliest architects would have most certainly be affected by. Art principles precede golf course architecture by quite a long time. Ancient Greek and Roman principles of art and architecture were well within the understandings and educations of many of the early architects. BUT THAT  IS AN ASIDE, and I'm only speaking about it to answer your points. I didn't mean to claim that early architects were or were not interested in such formal considerations. Those are considerations of EDUCATION and EDUCATED TASTE. The ones I'm speaking about are more primitive and, I feel - natural to the human organism itself.

[TEPaul]

"You seem to be reducing much of my discussion to simply "vantage points"

Adam:

There're a lot of different things to discuss in this thread, and I can't talk about all of them at once. "Vantatge points" in an architectural context I guess you'd be basically meaning tees or starting points of holes, right?

There's a lot any architect can do with the "feel" or feeling or "view" supplied to a golfer on a tee. Desmond Muirhead apparently used to have a step latter nearby occasionally to prove that just a few feet of increased elevation on tees could make a player feel so much stronger by being just a few feet higher looking down on things. Some architects seem to have a penchant for "vantage points" for tees that make a golfer feel this way and others seem to be interested in mixing it up far more by giving golfers tee vantages that may be more uphill or even blind or semi-blind or in some other way make a golfer feel uncomfortable somehow.

Personally, I think an architect should not necessarily strive to always try to make a golfer feel comfortable and occasionally strive to make him feel uncomfortable to see if he can handle it.

I guess this is what you're referring to by "vantage points".

In the very old days of courses that preceded man-made architecture such as TOC (wholly natural hole landforms in most every way) I doubt those who laid out the course really thought of things like this particularly since the point one teed off from was within only a few club lengths of the last cup (the green). In that case "vantage points" for the next hole would be largely dependent on the position of the green of the previous hole. Would those who laid out the course really have been thinking of "vantage points" for the next hole or the most logical site for a green on the previous hole? And then when all golf was walking golf (pre cart) obviously most all golf courses were routed with much closer green to tee distances obviously in many ways restricting architects from impressive "vantage points" on tees compared to what architects can and do today by just finding 18 landforms that can be and are far more separated.

I suppose this is some of what you're referring to by "vantage points" being some extension of the direction the golfer chooses to go with his ball and then walk after it. I've never thought much about any connection between hitting a ball and walking after it and frankly most all my memories of the golf I've played is what my ball did. I really can't remember much of anything about the walk after it or whether or not it was in any way along the same line or if that even occured to me.

But now that you've mentioned this potentially interesting correlation I think some of the most memorable and challenging holes I've ever played require a direction of walk that is or can be quite a different direction along the way than the direction the ball may go. The reasons why should be obvious.

[Adam_F_Collins]

"You seem to be reducing much of my discussion to simply "vantage points"

Adam:

There're a lot of different things to discuss in this thread, and I can't talk about all of them at once. "Vantatge points" in an architectural context I guess you'd be basically meaning tees or starting points of holes, right?

Okay, then we'll start with this - I think I mentioned "vantage points" once early in this thread, and I don't really care where they are, only that we tend to like getting to them. There are not many people that naturally dislike a clear view of their surroundings.

There's a lot any architect can do with the "feel" or feeling or "view" supplied to a golfer on a tee... Some architects seem to have a penchant for "vantage points" for tees that make a golfer feel this way and others seem to be interested in mixing it up far more by giving golfers tee vantages that may be more uphill or even blind or semi-blind or in some other way make a golfer feel uncomfortable somehow.

Personally, I think an architect should not necessarily strive to always try to make a golfer feel comfortable and occasionally strive to make him feel uncomfortable to see if he can handle it.

I agree with you there, Tom

In the very old days of courses that preceded man-made architecture such as TOC (wholly natural hole landforms in most every way) I doubt those who laid out the course really thought of things like this particularly since the point one teed off from was within only a few club lengths of the last cup (the green). In that case "vantage points" for the next hole would be largely dependent on the position of the green of the previous hole. Would those who laid out the course really have been thinking of "vantage points" for the next hole or the most logical site for a green on the previous hole? And then when all golf was walking golf (pre cart) obviously most all golf courses were routed with much closer green to tee distances obviously in many ways restricting architects from impressive "vantage points" on tees compared to what architects can and do today by just finding 18 landforms that can be and are far more separated.

Okay, I'm with you there. But golf was a different game then with different parameters. The fact that you had to tee up so close to the last hole made decisions about teeing ground a different sort of problem than it is now.

I've never thought much about any connection between hitting a ball and walking after it and frankly most all my memories of the golf I've played is what my ball did. I really can't remember much of anything about the walk after it or whether or not it was in any way along the same line or if that even occured to me.

I don't care if it is in the same line or not - only that you have to go after it or play another ball - and if you're going after it, you've got time to think about how the shot was good, or bad, or to worry about the lie ahead, or whatever. "Where will I find that ball?" "What will I discover when I find that ball?" The walking and the thinking between shots is a big part of the game itself - and you go where the ball leads - or where you've sent it on ahead. I'm not sure of what to make of it - if anything - I'm just considering it myself.

[TEPaul]

"I don't care if it is in the same line or not - only that you have to go after it or play another ball - and if you're going after it, you've got time to think about how the shot was good, or bad, or to worry about the lie ahead, or whatever. "Where will I find that ball?" "What will I discover when I find that ball?" The walking and the thinking between shots is a big part of the game itself - and you go where the ball leads - or where you've sent it on ahead. I'm not sure of what to make of it - if anything - I'm just considering it myself."

Adam:

This very subject is one that fascinates me almost the most in the evolution of golf and architecture. Back in the 19th century the occasional use of the "blind" shot was one of the most "prized" aspects in golf and architecture. And then mysteriously the preception of blindness in golf and architecture transformed to something that should never be done.

What happened? Why did "blindness" in golf and architecture transform like that so dramtically and even seemingly so quickly?

I feel there is a truly fascinating story (in that fact alone) within the much larger story of the entire evolution of golf course architecture.

It's not just a coincidence that Max Behr wrote a wonderful little article on the assets and benefits of blindness in golf and architecture.  

[Adam_F_Collins]

Behr, Behr, Behr...

Well I'm still Behr naked up here, pal. Someone told me they were going to send me some Behr articles, but they must've got lost in the mail...

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()