[Lou_Duran]

Scott,

I am not a teacher.  These are just my opinions and preferences, for whatever they're worth.  In the hundreds of courses I've played, I see far, far more similarities than unique features.  This does not mean that the designers did not approach their work with creativity and open minds.

It does make sense to me that through experience one learns what works under certain circumstances and what does not.  Trying to go free form for the sake of being different or even eclectic would probably be quite dangerous in designing and building a product for what is generally a fairly conservative clientele.

I personally don't have a problem with an architect who designs outstanding golf courses even if they tend to resemble each other a bit.  Fazio is often criticized for the similarity of his courses yet I don't hear of his business clients nor the majority of the users complain about it.  If designing by a set of rules or standards yields highly desirable results, what would be the argument for not doing so?  Different for the sake of being so?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

Its a semantic difference between rules, conventions, preferences, etc. no?  Its not quite a rule like I always stop at stop signs, because there are no life threatening consequences.  But most of what is designed is by some kind of rule, and MacKenzie and Ross had them, too.  When they left their field guys to build from their sketches, they had to base final decisions on something, and they had to say "I know Mac likes......."

BTW, I strongly disagree with your "do what you feel like" design theory, even if you don't like the word formula.  Any convention is a convention because it works in a large number of places.  The idea of the "Master Builder" who can do no wrong is a completely false premise.  The idea that golf courses are only art is a false premise.  They are practical landscapes built for a specific purpose.

In my mind, I like to be able to answer very specifically when anyone asks why something is the way it is.  There is always a reason for it in a good design.  What, by the way, is design intuition, other than internally relating the current site and feature you are designing to other similar ones you have faced or seen in the past?

Things that relate to maintenance, like minimimum green sizes should be strictly adhered to.  I won't go off and build a 2000 sf green.  Convention or not, I know that its going to croak before the end of the second year.  Not only is it not nice to fool Ma Nature, its not possible!

Even things that relate to playability - like providing cup settings at less than 3% should be adhered to.  While these types of "rules" can be broken every so often, you should be very aware of why and how you do it, and why you think it will work this time.  One or two broken rules makes for a unique golf course, but if you break basic design tenents (to throw a new word into the mix) too many times on one course, it just gets plain goofy.

Back to bunker depth determination - I think the brain power put into answering Mikes question on this thread may have exceeded the brain power used to build about 99% of the worlds bunkers.  The average golf architecture fan/lay person thinks golf architects think through this stuff far more than we actually do. As I said before, bunker depth usually comes out to what it comes out.  We probably only start thinking about "rules" when we accidently build something really shallow or really deep and start wondering about it.

Or, when someone touring in the dirt asks us either:

"Is this fair?" or,
"What the hell were you thinking when you built that monstrosity?"

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Wouldn't you agree that golf architecture is a lot like basketball, golf, football or many other sports.....fundamentals.....good fundamentals will take you a long way in sports and then you add the individualism to whatever you are doing...whether Iverson, Vick, Tiger or Brauer(now you can say you were mentioned in the same breath as these guys) and when you stray far from these fundamentals on a consistent basis....well...trouble....

[Joe Hancock]

Mike Young,

Are you telling me that "not thinking about it" is a fundamental of golf course architecture, as that is what JB is leading us to believe?

Joe

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young,

Are you telling me that "not thinking about it" is a fundamental of golf course architecture, as that is what JB is leading us to believe?

Joe

Joe,
No I wasn't saying that...I was saying that if one has good fundamentals he doesn't have to think about it.....does a basketball player think about a jump shot..no...and if doesn't have good fundamentals he doesnt get far...same for golf archies IMHO.

[paul cowley]

....it just occurred to me that although I earlier gave a frame of reference for what a '1' or a '10' would be on my bunker strength scale, I forgot to include a mid range.

A '5' would be a bunker that I could stand in facing the green and take a piss without embarrassment while being viewed from three sides.

Hope this helps.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

You are a great salesman, adept at painting word images we can all understand.......

Mike,

I think of GCA fundamentals as being good in drainage, etc.  That's where so many people building golf courses now are, to me, just playing in the dirt.  As far as strategic design theories, I guess you could call the conventions that most of us closely follow fundamentals, but thats not quite the right concept. If I figure out what the right concept is, I'll let you know.

I like hockey better than basketball because players do stay in a teamwork mode to a greater degree than I see in the NBA or major college ball.  I recall watching Bobby Knights 1976 era Hoosiers dismantle opponents with talent (although none of his stars were huge in the NBA) and teamwork - I don't think I ever saw them take more than a ten foot jumper after several crisp passes.  Do we see that any more?  I don't know, because all I watch is hockey.

Joe,

I know you are being faceitious to a degree, but I certainly don't think that gca can be done solely by formula and without thinking.  Unlike building architecture, where the same toilet or doorknob can be used repetively, unique land forms makes most green designs a unique challenge.

It takes talent and much thought to apply fundamental (okay, maybe it is the right word) design theory to those unique sites and make it all work.  At least, I have rarely been able to "mail it in" and make it right.  Maybe other guys are smarter than me.

Having a fairly strong set of principals - whether minimalism, maximalism, or any stop in between, effectively reduces the number of options we might consider as gca's from infinite to a mere three dozen or so for each design problem.

And it may be great marketing to say you start completely fresh on each site, but in reality, its a difficult thing to do.  Not impossible, since I still get excited at every new project to, for example, review bunker styles to match the site rather than doing the samo samo.  In other ways - like deciding to build a 2000 SF green, its not so good.  And, after building several courses, I wouldn't want to ignore lessons learned.

But that constitutes higher level thinking, not no thinking, IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

By coincidence I was reading John Wooden's book on leadership last weekend, so I am more inclined to agree with Mike Young's advocacy of "fundamentals" much more than I usually would.  

I think my fundamentals are just a bit more elaborate than a lot of people's, because I have seen so many good golf courses and I can clearly remember how the "shoulds" in Jeff's arguments have been broken successfully on a great hole somewhere.  But, if you are not aware that there are rules which you should be careful about breaking, Mike is right, you are very likely to find yourself building something dumb.

Paul:  So is that how you number the bunkers which are rated 5 or higher?

[jeffwarne]

My impression of good fundamentals for working architects is a little bit like that for golf teachers.

Teachers and architects are working within certain paramaters or fundamentals. The more experienced one is ,the wider those paramaters can be,but only when the occasion calls for it.
A less experienced teacher might needlessly force a talented player into his limited paramaters, thus spoiling the natural talent of the player, the same as an inexperienced architect might force a fundamental or paramater on a unique piece of land or greensite, thus limiting its' potential. the secret is knowing when and how widely to enforce the parameters.

The same as many players have been overcoached and had the talent and feel sucked out of them, a piece of land could be ruined or underutilized by someone lacking the experience to know the difference.

As Tom Doak notes it helped him to have a wide range from all the courses he's seen/played,and he might not even be aware of what fundamental he's employing,the same as Mike's analogy to a player taking a jump shot.

I must say when I played the second hole at Sebonack I had a rare moment of "I've never seen anything like this before"
and I've seen my share of UK and US courses
 I'm pretty sure an inexperienced, nonwelltraveled architect would've lacked the courage for that hole. Particularly in collaboration with the world's greatest player.
 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I think of GCA fundamentals as being good in drainage, etc.  That's where so many people building golf courses now are, to me, just playing in the dirt.  As far as strategic design theories, I guess you could call the conventions that most of us closely follow fundamentals, but thats not quite the right concept. If I figure out what the right concept is, I'll let you know.

I like hockey better than basketball because players do stay in a teamwork mode to a greater degree than I see in the NBA or major college ball.  I recall watching Bobby Knights 1976 era Hoosiers dismantle opponents with talent (although none of his stars were huge in the NBA) and teamwork - I don't think I ever saw them take more than a ten foot jumper after several crisp passes.  Do we see that any more?  I don't know, because all I watch is hockey.

Jeff,
I could probably start a new thread on fundamentals.  But IMHO take Hockey or any other sport and they all have fundamentals....from my experience all great coaches teach fundamentals at some point in each practice......and the one fundamental all sports have in common is balance.(funny how that word works for all great courses also IMHO)....in BB they teach the hand position on the BB and to square up, how to defend, and many more......in golf we have grip, balance, stance etc and I am sure hockey is the same......AND in all these sports you can find guys with talent and poor fundamentals and they will get beat by less talent with good fundamentals.....going back to BB you will  often see a team with one star and 8 good fundamentaly sound players beat teams with several stars and fundamentally weak 6789 men.......
Anyway as for golf architecture I do think there are basic fundamentals that all good golf courses have and I dont think it has to do with design style....IMHO these would be some things such as tee locations and sizes, drainage, landing area widths for the appropriate shot, approach angles relative to green strategies, green sizes, and it could go on....for instance strategies can have many different aestheic looks whether they are modern, tradional 80s or dead guy stuff.....
Anyway...

[paul cowley]

In Architecture I have seen way to many poorly designed structures created by people who definitely know building fundamentals but then use that same knowledge to make up for a lack of design talent.

Anyone who can get paid to build a golf course has to possess basic design and engineering skills....but these fundamentals don't guarantee a great course.
The talent to do that is an entirely different matter.

[Scott Witter]

Jeff:

"Its a semantic difference between rules, conventions, preferences, etc. no?"

Yes I would agree.

"Any convention is a convention because it works in a large number of places.  The idea of the "Master Builder" who can do no wrong is a completely false premise.  The idea that golf courses are only art is a false premise.  They are practical landscapes built for a specific purpose."

I agree again about the convention reference and it again comes down to semantics in many ways and perhaps I was getting too hung up on the definition of 'formula' and the connotation it implied to the design field, whether GCA or not.  I didn't say that golf courses were only art, and if I implied that, it wasn't intended.  Yes thay are practical in many respects, but even here, (sorry I am geting off the track a bit) using the word practical in the context of discussing design and art seems a bit contradicting, just rubs the wrong way...all this even though I recognize that GCA in many ways applies practical conventions and fundamentals first in order to set up the opportunities for one to be more creative.

"Even things that relate to playability - like providing cup settings at less than 3% should be adhered to.  While these types of "rules" can be broken every so often, you should be very aware of why and how you do it, and why you think it will work this time.  One or two broken rules makes for a unique golf course, but if you break basic design tenents (to throw a new word into the mix) too many times on one course, it just gets plain goofy"

I am aware of all this, but I think some of us operate with these design tenents in the forefront of work and at times it can direct or sway the design in ways that might have otherwise been more creative if these conventions were placed off to the side for a while first...just a thought.

Mike:

"good fundamentals will take you a long way in sports and then you add the individualism to whatever you are doing"

I like this and feel it is more in line with how many of us work especially when making the transition from the office to the field.  Though I am sure there are plenty of sound fundamentals applied first in the office...even by Tom Doak if only to be used as a good starting point from which to develop an idea further in the field to fit the site and other design conditions.

Paul:

"A '5' would be a bunker that I could stand in facing the green and take a piss without embarrassment while being viewed from three sides."

There is much on this site that I enjoy as a work release now and again and the humor from you and Jeff Brauer can really brighten a day.  I can always count on you to post something to keep it all in perspective and I suspect it comes quite natural

[Mike_Young]

In Architecture I have seen way to many poorly designed structures created by people who definitely know building fundamentals but then use that same knowledge to make up for a lack of design talent.

Anyone who can get paid to build a golf course has to possess basic design and engineering skills....but these fundamentals don't guarantee a great course.
The talent to do that is an entirely different matter.

Paul,
I agree.  I never said fundamentals guaranteed a great course...I said you will not find a great course without fundamentals......same for players in most sports..IMO
Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()