[Adam_F_Collins]

This goes back to a the concept of 'contrast' or 'variety' which I've talked about here before. I find it very interesting to consider how architects make the individual holes of a course stand out as memorable and as having character - while at the same time, maintaining an overall unity for the entire course.

Consider a seaside property. Can it be a mistake to make too many "ocean holes"?

• Do architects tend to try not to overuse a distinguishing feature of a property?
• Are changes of perspective to the most obvious or important physical features of a property imperative to the best use of such features?
• Do those changes include sometimes avoiding those features altogether, or looking for other, less obvious features to accentuate in order to create variety and unique character?

[Mike Hendren]

... is a good thing.

- Alan Jackson

[Kyle Harris]

Adam,

One of the most endearing things about a William Flynn course (at least the three I've played: Manufacturer's, Huntingdon Valley, and Rolling Green) is that he seemed able to route the golf course to attack and use the distinguishable features of the site in many different ways.

At Manny's, Flynn used Sandy Run to gaurd 4 greens (2nd, 5th, 10th, and 17th), and at a cursory glance the usage of the creek looks redundant. However, a closer look shows that the angle of the creek in relation to the green, the distance from the creek to the green, and the appearance of the creek and green from the fairway all vary and all enter play differently.

He used the quarry and deep swale on the site in similar ways: varying angle and distance from the target to fool and tempt the golfer.

Is this too much of a good thing? In this case no: but a different architect on the same site may have abused the site's natural features.

[Adam_F_Collins]

At Stanley Thompson's Digby Pines, there is a stream and deep ravine that cuts through the property and is probably the most notable feature. He utilized it in contrasting ways at different points throughout the round.

#2 - longish par 3 from top of the north side to the bottom of the south (a drop of about 50'), the stream was dammed to form a diagonal hazard.

#8 - medium length par three from top of south side to the top of the north - straight away (north side is about 30 ft lower than the tee on the south in this area)

#11 - short par 4 - drivable and uphill, moving slightly left to right. The tee is on the north side, carrying the ravine to the fairway on the top of the south.

#16 - short par 3 of about 120 - stream is dammed to form a wide, smooth pool, and the sound of the water after the dam carries softly up to your ears at the tee. The tee is at the top of the south side of the ravine and the pool and green is at the bottom, on the north side on a slightly diagonal line. From the forward tee, you can see both the water and the green, but when you walk to the back, it's blind. It's a fantastic par 3.

I always found this scattered and diverse use of the ravine (at nice intervals through the round) to be brilliant in my limited experience.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Anyone else? I got to thinking about this while reading Nicklaus' book "Nicklaus By Design" where Jack says:

"Too much beautiful waterfront land is a wonderful problem to have, but it does complicate the design process. Look at Pebble Beach. You have one of the greatest stretches of holes anywhere in the world there with Nos. 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 all on the ocean. What a fabulous stretch of holes. But can you imagine if the first three and last eight were also on the water? Suddenly, we wouldn't be talking about a great stretch, we would be talking about a four-hour blur in which all 18 holes would blend into one seaside sensation" (pp 201-206)

Do you agree?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()