Architecture's ultimate symbiotic relationship ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gene Greco,

While I might not have experienced high wind speeds, I did experience high green speeds, and the two don't go together.

You can't keep your sloped or contoured greens at 10+ when high winds buffet the golf course.

I'd be interested to know at what slope (%) and what wind speed (mph) balls get rollled off of the putting surface.

[ForkaB]

Pat

Having grown up on the east coast of the USA, I know hurricanes, and spending a fair amount of my youth sailing, I know wind speeds.  Having played mostly seaside golf in Scotland (and in the US) over the past 25 years I know about playing golf in the wind. Trust me on this one, big guy, but 30-40MPH and + wind speeds are neither unplayable nor goofy on the courses I've played--difficult, but still fun and a test of skill, and a test of architecture.  And no, you don't need 4-6 stimps on the courses I've played in high winds to keep the balls on the greens.

PS--you may have a VERY wide stance, Pat, but in the wind, vertically challenged ex-front row rugby players like me will always have an advantage over tall drink of water ex-hoopsters like you!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

That's probably true, being closer to the ground has its advantages.

But, 45 mph is excessive.

There has to be a study that reveals the winds (mph) impact on golf balls depending on stimp speed and slope (%)

Slope (%)          Stimp                      Wind (mph)

1 %             1 foot increments      10 mph increments          
2 %                  "                                "
3 %                  "                                "
4 %                  "                                "

[Tony_Muldoon]

As an (ex) windsurfer who used to head to the sea for fun there one other point |I think should be made. Inland winds are a lot more inconsistent and capricious than coastal winds. This discussion has tended to focus on the extremes but I believe the winds on links courses in GB in the summer average 10-15 mph and are reasonably predictable in nature.  Often an offshore wind in the morning becomes an on shore wind in the pm (its’ to do with the relative speed with which land heats up compared to water).  This is probably more important locally than the prevailing wind in the UK and Ireland being from the SW (this and other winds are obviously more important in winter). Thus you can get two different courses to play over the same land in one day.  Inland winds are much less constant and on any given day are usually less powerful than those at the coast.

And remember as we used to say “If there’s nae wind there’s nae windsurfing!”

[Gene Greco]

Pat:

    That's exactly my point. You didn't experience high winds, nor the usual wind speeds for that matter, and were unable to see that the course is very playable overall and moreso with respect to the greens.

Granted, "par" for the day might be 75 but the course is playable.

[Tom Huckaby]

But there is a point where any course -- no matter how great -- is actually less fun to play due to wind.  

I believe that's what Patrick was getting at - when balls go from stationary to rolling around on and off a green just due to wind, that's the time to stay in the bar.

BUT... this does sum up the issue:

To me, the question is:  how much wind does it take for this course to really sparkle?  The better the architecture, the less wind it takes...
 

I would have to believe the greatest courses are as fun to play on a calm day as they are in wind.  No?

Sand Hills sure meets this requirement.

TH

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think this question becomes one that has so many variables, that it becomes very difficult to provide a good response.

The answer is rather course and wind strength specific.

Links courses clearly benefit from the supply of wind, as do most courses IMHO,however there comes a point at which it ruins the nature of the game.

Once one gets in excess of 25/30 miles an hour winds, all courses lose any of their functional design features and the game becomes more of a guessing game, beyond the control of the design team.

I feel that once you get into the realms of 4 and 5 club winds, the course becomes unintersting as the day becomes nothing but survival, and to me that really is not much fun.

I have played Pacific Dunes 3 times in varying degrees of wind, from a very gentle breeze to winds in excess of 30 miles an hour..and I truly believe it was a better course in teh slight breeze than the out of control wind.
Not simply because I obviously played better, but there became this point at which all of Doak's architectural features were no longer features at all.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Growing up, I played way too much golf on the links course of England and Scotland where the courses were basically unplayable because of the wind strength...you know the sort of days when a quality amateur field provides a low score of 83 for the day....that is the wind in excess..and leaves the only symbiotic realtionship of player and 19th hole!

So maybe it is not that bad after all.

[Tom Huckaby]

I guess a different, perhaps better way to put it is this:

The greatest courses in the world don't REQUIRE wind to be great.

How's that?

TH

[PThomas]

Huck:  doesn't TOC and some other links  really need at least somewind to make it great?  since the wind is almost always up at those places, it is  a significant consideration when designing such courses

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul - I'd argue no in the case of TOC and damn near any other great links you'd care to name.  Oh, they do fully show their teeth in appreciable wind, but they are each still great on a calm day - or just use the great line shivas just posted - that says it far better.

TH

[PThomas]

But Huck, do you think they present the type of challenge they were designed for on calm days?  I say no...certainly at the pro level TOC without wind seems very defenseless

and talk about wind:  I think in the 70 Open Playoff at TOC the winds were sometimes clocked at 50 KNOTS an hour!!!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul:

They truly great courses present PLENTY enough challenge for 99.9% of the world's golfers, wind or no wind.  Yes, absent wind that 0.1% can shoot some very low scores - and the rest of us might shoot scores lower than we are accustomed to.

But that doesn't make them any less great.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't see why this has to be limited to great golf courses or a symbiotic relationship.  I see a linearity to it.  Frankly, it takes less wind to make NGLA shine than it does any old rat-ass muni.  

Shivas, certain courses will never shine, no matter how strong the wind.

Other courses are enhanced by the wind until you reach their crossover point, which varies.

But here's the truth as I see it -- virtually ANY golf course is a blast to play if the wind is strong enough.  

You're confused.  With very strong winds, you're playing the wind, not the golf course, and the architecture can be irrelevant.

That even applies to the Jans National.  As I see it, a great golf course only needs about a 1 club wind to get really, really interesting and reach its peak.  But give me the Jans in a 3-4 clubber, and I'll have every bit as much fun and feel every bit as much challenge, whereas if you've ever had the pleasure of playing a Medinah #3 or a Butler National in a 3 club wind, as I have, the experience becomes downright displeasurable.

At a 3-4 clublength wind I doubt Jans National's architecture has any substantive relevance.  

Maybe that threshold is 4-5 clubs for someplace like NGLA or Pebble.  

NGLA and PB in a 4-5 clublength wind begin to border on, or may be unplayable, depending upon the course conditions.


Maybe you even have to ratchet it up to 6 clubs if you really love wind.

I"d say that a 6 club length wind borders on, or is unplayable.  

But there is a point where any course -- no matter how great -- is actually less fun to play due to wind.  To me, the question is:  how much wind does it take for this course to really sparkle?

Or, based on ground conditions, at what mph does the course optimize itself ?  

The better the architecture, the less wind it takes...

I think the folks at Seminole and NGLA would disagree with that statement, as would I.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

All these discussions are in terms of club changes from the wind (one club wind, etc) - which change from player to player no?

A one club wind for you may be a two club wind for a high ball hitter.

Wouldn't that change the relevance of wind speed based on ability and style of play? How do you feel a golf course's design reflects that difference?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The greatest courses in the world don't REQUIRE wind to be great.

How's that?

How's that ?   I think that's incorrect, and would cite Seminole, NGLA, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Head, Shinnecock, Sand Hills and others as examples where good courses are made great by the wind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle Harris,

There's a limit to the subsets I can create while keeping the thread on target.

If you think in non-individual terms like the green slope-speed-wind issue it removes individual performance and makes the discusson easier to keep on track.

In addition, some things balance out.

A high ball hitter is harmed into the wind, but helped downwind.

[Kyle Harris]

Patrick,

Understood. Perhaps an idea for a new thread when this discussion wraps up.

As you said, it is a new dimension of analysis.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle Harris,

There's a limit to the subsets I can create while keeping the thread on target.

If you think in non-individual terms like the green slope-speed-wind issue it removes individual performance and makes the discusson easier to keep on track.

In addition, some things balance out.

A high ball hitter is harmed into the wind, but helped downwind.

Helped IS relative... sometimes a helping wind distance wise is a hinderance for control: like a flier lie.

[Tom Huckaby]

The greatest courses in the world don't REQUIRE wind to be great.

How's that?

How's that ?   I think that's incorrect, and would cite Seminole, NGLA, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Head, Shinnecock, Sand Hills and others as examples where good courses are made great by the wind.

Patrick:

I'd disagree.  As I said, and shivas refined much better, they start out great, but "they require a little wind to truly incrementally sparkle above and beyond what they already are."

I guess this is going to turn on what each of us chooses to define "great" as.  You say good, I say great.  It may have to do with our frame of reference.

EDIT - shivas and I crossed - but I concur with exactly what he just posted.  Each of these courses is damn fun to play even in dead calm.  To me they start great, etc. - as shivas said.

TH

[Sean_A]

The greatest courses in the world don't REQUIRE wind to be great.

How's that?

How's that ?   I think that's incorrect, and would cite Seminole, NGLA, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Head, Shinnecock, Sand Hills and others as examples where good courses are made great by the wind.

Pat

I guess I am in the camp of architecture doesn't change because of wind.  The conditions may vary, but unless guys are sticking Hinckle trees on the course it is the same.  

If there is no wind, what are the greatest courses?

Ciao

Sean

[Patrick_Mucci]

The greatest courses in the world don't REQUIRE wind to be great.

How's that?

How's that ?   I think that's incorrect, and would cite Seminole, NGLA, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Head, Shinnecock, Sand Hills and others as examples where good courses are made great by the wind.

How's that?  Because they don't require wind to be great.  They're great in a dead calm.  The architecture is that good.  They sparkle in wind, and rise above other courses that don't sparkle as much in the wind.  That's why we love them so.

Have you ever played Seminole ?

Have you ever played Seminole on a calm day ?

Have you ever played Seminole on a windy day ?

My guess is that you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't have made the above statement.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Of course neither shivas nor I have ever played Seminole - precious few people here have.  And I gather it sucks without wind?  Fair enough - there's ONE that doesn't work for this.  of course I'd counter if that's the case, it doesn't rise to greatness at all... either that, or there just may be VERY few windless days there, so as to make the issue moot.

I have played NGLA, Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, Shinnecock - in wind and windless conditions at two, in light winds only at the two in Southampton.  I believe that is enough for me to make the statement that I concur with shivas in how this works at each of these courses.

BTW, have you played Santa Teresa?  It's basic in wind and in no wind.  My guess is you haven't, or you wouldn't be so quick to say any course is "good" but not "great."

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat, questions offer little reply to a statement.  What are you saying:  Seminole sucks without wind?  

shivas, I'd say something about great minds, but I don't want to insult you.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't see why this has to be limited to great golf courses or a symbiotic relationship.  I see a linearity to it.  Frankly, it takes less wind to make NGLA shine than it does any old rat-ass muni.  

Shivas, certain courses will never shine, no matter how strong the wind.

Other courses are enhanced by the wind until you reach their crossover point, which varies.

But here's the truth as I see it -- virtually ANY golf course is a blast to play if the wind is strong enough.

That's not true.
There's no fun in playing in an 8 club wind.
And, there's no fun playing in a 4-5 club wind.
Wind is only fun to play in when the golf course's architecture is prepared to interface with it.[/color]


You're confused.  With very strong winds, you're playing the wind, not the golf course, and the architecture can be irrelevant.

[Nope, Pat, I think you misread what I said.  I said they can be a blast to play.  I don't think their architecture changes one iota.  And last time I checked, you're still playing the golf course]

Then you better check again, because if the features are brought out of play, it incrementally ceases being a golf course.[/color]

That even applies to the Jans National.  As I see it, a great golf course only needs about a 1 club wind to get really, really interesting and reach its peak.  

Seminole disproves your theory.[/color]

But give me the Jans in a 3-4 clubber, and I'll have every bit as much fun and feel every bit as much challenge, whereas if you've ever had the pleasure of playing a Medinah #3 or a Butler National in a 3 club wind, as I have, the experience becomes downright displeasurable.

At a 3-4 clublength wind I doubt Jans National's architecture has any substantive relevance.

[Pat, same comment...I didn't say the Jans has any substantive relevance to its architecture.  I said I'll have as much fun and feel as much challenge, albeit on a rat ass muni if there ever was one]  

Maybe that threshold is 4-5 clubs for someplace like NGLA or Pebble.  

NGLA and PB in a 4-5 clublength wind begin to border on, or may be unplayable, depending upon the course conditions.


Maybe you even have to ratchet it up to 6 clubs if you really love wind.

I"d say that a 6 club length wind borders on, or is unplayable.  

But there is a point where any course -- no matter how great -- is actually less fun to play due to wind.  To me, the question is:  how much wind does it take for this course to really sparkle?

Or, based on ground conditions, at what mph does the course optimize itself ?

I can live with that...

The better the architecture, the less wind it takes...

I think the folks at Seminole and NGLA would disagree with that statement, as would I.

Well, they can disagree with whatever they want, but you just said above that NGLA becomes borderline unplayable in a 4-5 club wind.  The average muni does not

Baloney, almost every course becomes unplayable in a 4-5 club length wind.

And, if a golf course has narrower fairways than GCGC or NGLA it will become unplayable sooner.[/color]