Strategy: How subtle is too subtle?

[Mark_F]

In Mackenzie's The Spirit of St. Andrews, (pp.141-142), when talking about the sixteenth hole, he mentions how one Ted Blackwell had played The Old Course for fifty years and it may have been thirty years (it may, of course, have been only three months), before experience taught him how to play that particular hole.  
Can strategy be too subtle, then?
And before I get struck off as heretical, I'm merely posing a rhetorical question.  I'm sure we all agree that the more you have to think on a golf course the more everlasting fun and enjoyment will be, but we all need a reward some time.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

Let me just say this -- sometimes strategy on a supposed "minimalistic" style design can often be lacking. In essence -- the stated goal of "less is more" becomes "less is even less."

There are plenty of GCAers who favor the minimalist style. Sometimes the rewards / penalities are just not as defined as they need to be in order to provide the clarity of outcomes I believe you are looking for.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Can you share a couple examples that motivated your comments?

Are there well known examples where "minimalists" believe strategy exists and you think it doesn't?

[ian]

Mark,

The short 140 yard par 3 5th at Lookout Point may fit the bill. The first time any player comes to the hole, they look at the yardage and try to hit it with a short iron. They may continue to do this every time. The green is steeply back to front. The fall off behind is 10 feet at 2 to 1. The bunkering on either side is 6 to 8 feet deep (and they face each other. The green is 2800 square feet......But if you hit short (even just over the carry bunker-80 yards) the ball will bounce to the front edge of green and garantee a par. I've only seen one player regularly play that shot in the 10 rounds I have played there.
I have seen more than one 10! Subtle? Took me five rounds to see it and I like long bump and runs!

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

I'll give you an example of a new daily fee design located on Long Island designed by Gil Hanse called Tallgrass in Shoreham.

The course is located on absolutely dead flat land and although I usually enjoy his designs the course fails, with one or two exceptions, because the nature of the land fails to do anything.

One hole that I really did like was the par-3 17th which plays 217 yards. Here the golfer can only partially see the top half of the flagstick from the tee as a large "bubble" of earth rises before the green. The player can use the "bubble" to run a shot towards the flag or fly it to the hole. If more of these type of holes were created you would have something of first rate distinction. But, keep in mind -- the "bubble" has all the appearances of being man made.

Another example of a course that fits the "less is less" bill for me is another new layout -- Hidden Creek along the Jersey Shore just outside of AC. Designed by Crenshaw & Coore, the course has a number of fine holes, but for the most part the nondescript nature of South Jersey terrain fails to elevate the bulk of the holes. Keep in mind -- I'm not saying the course does not have qualities, however, when architects wrap themselves up in the "minimalist" style you have to have turf / soil conditions that one can tap into in order to add that sense of strategic value.

If you analyze many of the courses in Scotland and Ireland the added element of the ground game (and the soils that provide for it) allowed for those designs NOT to add additional features to beef up the inherent shot values when playing. In America the lack of suitable soils impacts the ground game and makes designing "minimalistic" type courses such a risky gambit because either they work really well (i.e. Sand Hills) or they take the route that I just finished describing.  

[brad_miller]

Matt, what might you have done differently at Hidden Creek? Move more earth? Increase the cost to build? Add a few water holes?

[Matt_Ward]

Brad:

For the lack of a better word the terrain in South Jersey generally sucks. Unfortunately, you get a real education in terms of styles in the area. You have the "over the top" motif of Desmond Muirhead at Stone Harbor with all the "bells and whistles" you could ever want. I often think about how much fanfare was created by the par-3 7th called the "jaws hole."

Since the terrain is basically scrub pine and terribly flat it's difficult to create something that stands out without overdoing man's hand. Brad -- South Jersey is the complete opposite of the rolling and scenic nature of Westchester or Fairfield counties as you and others well know.

Look, I like Hidden Creek and the land that Roger Hansen had for the layout is clearly beyond much of what exists in the immediate area. But the "ground" game aspect, that I believe is critical to the minimalistic approach, is difficult to accomplish because the soils in the area don't lend themselves so easily to it.

It's possible that moving some additional earth may have added some definition -- but, I'm not suggesting that people follow the route of Stone Harbor or the new Shore Gate and go for overkill by throwing everything possible at the golfer when playing.

Botton line -- some locations make for very difficult spots to incorporate the "minimalistic" approach.

[John Morrissett]

Matt Ward--

Regarding Hidden Creek:

When I played there this summer, the course was relatively firm considering a recent rain.  Two friends played there ten days ago and said they had probably never played a course in better condition -- firm and fast, which made the approach shots quite fun.  For example, how fun is judging where to land the approach to the 10th??  Or the tee shot to the 14th when the hole is up front?  Or the second shot (going for the green) on the 3rd?  Or what shape shot and here to land it on the 4th?

The design and conditioning do an excellent job to complement each other.

Also, you imply there are a number of humdrum holes -- which ones???  I thought Hidden Creek is a remarkably strong design, where you have to agonize to name the three least interesting holes.  I continue to believe HC is a contender for the third best course in the state (not necessarily that it is, but it might well be, as there are only two courses in NJ I would definitely rather play).

[TEPaul]

How subtle is too subtle?

Good question but just think, on a few courses that are extremely subtle there may be some subtleties out there that haven't even been found yet! Wouldn't that be exciting? I saw two in a single round at PVGC from another golfer that really amazed me! I had no idea! And man they were subtle--a couple of super slim margin for error areas and situations!

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Thanks. Unfortunately, I haven't seen either Tallgrass or Hidden Creek, so I can't comment directly.

However, you do raise an interest point. Some properties are better than others, probably due to many factors, including soil conditions, topography and the presence (or lack of) other natural features. In short, maybe certain sites don't offer the opportunity to build something "great" with a minimalist approach.

Still, I'm wondering about the tradeoff between strategic value and project/green fee costs. Isn't part of the case for minimalist designs the opportunity to offer lower playing cost?

This summer I played with a man from Texas. He said the local daily fee he played cost $28 but there was talk of raising green fees to $35-38. He felt he would not be able to play as often if this happened. Aren't miimalist designs a way to keep such players in the game?

Also, I'm wondering if you might comment on Tallgrass and/or Hidden Creek from the perspective of the average player, say the 18 handicap. Do these courses not provide enough challenge for these folks?

[Chris Hervochon]

Just out of curiousity, what were those intricacies at "The Valley" that were pointed out to you?  Please describe.

[Matt_Ward]

John M:

Let me say that Hidden Creek does have a number of superb holes -- the 10th is a dynamic par-4 that calls for plenty of strategy from the tee right through to the final putt. Ditto the qualities of the short but unique par-3 11th and the demanding long par-4 12th.

My point was that there are a number of holes that are simply vanilla because the terrain of South Jersey doesn't lend itself to much. I say this even though the parcel of land for Hidden Creek is indeed better than most.

I played the course in early May and turf condition were very good, but it wasn't on the speed of firm and fast that you might find at another C&C layout -- Sand Hills.

John, you did name a number of good holes but after you pass the 12th hole the course finishes with a bit of a letdown. The long 16th is just that -- long but empty. The par-5 17th is nicely done with the bunker that cuts in from the left, but the hole is also on the lite side. The finishing hole is Ok but again there's no sizzle.

I agree with you on the 3rd and the par-3 4th is a thrill. However, there are a few holes on the front (i.e. the 5th thru the 9th hole) are OK, but simply matter of fact and nothing more. Yes, C&C have done well with the green contours on a number of holes, but from my experience in seeing golf course development in New Jersey for a number of years I know how tough it can be in designing courses in such a limited area where the topography for the most part is so utterly unappealing in so many ways.

You say a case can be made for 3rd best in NJ. Please enlighten me how you came to even the slightest bit of such a suggestion. NJ has a number of outstanding courses and clearly Hidden Creek is a wonderful addition. However, I'm not willing to throw out a number of other outstanding courses so quickly. Do you see Hidden Creek beyond Ridgewood, Galloway National, Forsgate / Banks, Essex County, Somerset Hills, Montclair, Twisted Dune, etc. etc

My only point was that the "minimalistic design school" is based on the premise that "less can be more." I think you can accomplish that philosophy / style, but it takes a certain degree of soils and topography / terrain for that to happen. In my opinion, South Jersey doesn't lend itself so easily to that end.

Tim Weiman:

I don't believe you can assume that costs under the "minimalistic" school of design will always be less. Sometimes the desire to have challenging greens on a minimalistic design can be quite expensive when compared to the flat-as-pancake putting surfaces you might find on other layouts.

Regarding your example of costs -- if green fees don't spike that high I don't see how they will have a major impact on someone playing. If you were double green fees then clearly it would. Give one example -- NY State, in its infinite wisdowm, doubled the green fee for playing Bethpage Black from $31 & $39 on weekdays to $62 & $78 on weekends and holidays. Clearly, that will have some impact on out-of-state play -- especially for those in nearby states such as CT and NJ, to name just two. If a green bumps up $5-$10 I see it having little impact.

Regarding the qualities of the two courses I mentioned for the 18 handicap player I believe they will clearly enjoy both. Tallgrass is well done for the average player and there's enough challenge without being onerous or backbreaking. Hidden Creek was designed to be an enjoyable member's course by C&C and they have clearly fulfilled their task.

[John Morrissett]

Matt Ward--

We have differing views on golf course architecture.

I am not sure sure -- are you trashing (1) Hidden Creek, (2) South Jersey, (3) both, or (4) Hidden Creek because it is in South Jersey?  I agree that the property for Hidden Creek is nothing special, but the designs makes you think the property is indeed special -- a compliment to the architects.

You admit the course conditioning is good -- so what's your point about the ground game??

You say the 5th - 9th are just OK holes.  I like the 5th a good bit and love the 8th, while 6,7, and 9 are all quite good, so we disagree slightly on those five holes.

With Hidden Creek in the context of NJ, I wrote that there are only two courses (Pine Valley and Somerset Hills) in the state I would definitely rather play.  There are a number of strong candidates for the third position (Plainfield, the Baltusrols, Hollywood, etc.), and I include Hidden Creek in that group.  

The 17th is on the "lite" side?  At 500 or so yards uphill with bunkers galore, I don't see anything "lite" about it.  In fact, I think it works very, very well as the penultimate hole.  If you didn't understand the 13th-16th, I'll save my time.

[Matt_Ward]

John Morrissett:

I didn't trash Hidden Creek -- I did say that the general terrain of South Jersey in most spots is plain lousy for golf. I did say that C&C did a good job and that the site is better than most, but nonetheless it still must deal with the rather drab characteristics that pervade the region. When you elevate it to 3rd best in the Garden State I see it clearly much differently than you do.

Bear in mind this -- a golf course can be in good to superior conditioning, but does that same conditioning lend itself to the firm and fast conditions that many believe ideal. I didn't see those type of condition when I played last May. John -- there are many courses that are wall-to-wall carpets, however, the general softness / soil conditions / topography doesn't permit the fast and firm ground game that lies at the heart of minimalism, in my opinion.

Regarding the individual holes I believe I stated a fair analysis. Yes, we see certain holes differently. I've credited the holes that clearly have plenty to offer, but I think you're being a bit generous in your analysis of the others -- so be it. If you think the 13th-16th is so solid I say more power to you. We agree to disagree.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward,

I haven't seen enough project economics to know how often minimalist designs out perform when it comes to cost savings. But, surely that is PART of the rationale for this school of architecture.

If you have data documenting minimalist designs as being more expensive a large percent of the time, it would certainly be interesting.

As for how means $10 means in green fee, I don't know that either, but for those less fortunate it may be more than one thinks. If this guy from Texas wants to play twice per week, that would be a thousand dollars per year. Can the man making $30K really afford that?

[Robert_Walker]

I have had the good fortune to play Hidden Creek twice, once in the summer, and once in late October. If that course is loaded with vanilla holes, then I do not "get it", and I have no business posting on this site.