No Rules in Golf Design

[Peter Pallotta]

A pretty basic question, I think, and one that was probably discussed a lot before I got here. But here goes:

In reading some of the interviews, I got to the Jim Urbina one from 2002. In talking about working with Tom D, he says:

"....Here I am, thinking I’m getting smart about all of this stuff and he tells me that there are no rules in golf design [...] I remember asking about things like 'Par 72', and 'Design Balance', 'Multiple Tees' and 'Equal Sized Pin Areas on Greens' and to every one of those things, Tom Doak said, 'Forget it. Forget all those rules and just be creative'."

I don't mean this to be about Rennaissance Design. In general, I'd assumed that there were a whole bunch of rules about gca, and thought that my learning was all about trying to understand those rules.  

What does "there are no rules" mean? How does that play out in good designs, past or present?  

Thanks
Peter

[Gary Slatter]

From the operations side, there should be one Rule: Drainage.
No drainage means paths have to be built to handle course maintenance vehicles (usually cause more damage than golf carts).

[Garland Bayley]

It means he read Tom Fazio's book (where he claims to follow no rules) and decided to emulate him.  

[Tim Copeland]

1 rule that was made evident this morning because it was not followed.....architect needs to get it right before irrigation and drainage goes in

We had a irrigation blowout that washed greens mix out of the core in a 12 foot swath.

This hole had irrigation installed and then the archie came in to tweak it to improve visibility....shaved too much off of the top of irrigation that was installed beside the green and............boom....a n overnight irrigation blow out.



Fun Fun....but....hey.....at least the green has visibility...............

[Kirk Gill]

Is this a case, like in jazz, where you need to know the rules first, and then work on that base to break the rules in ways that elevate the art?

[Padraig Dooley]

There is one rule, variety.

[Jeff Doerr]

Is this a case, like in jazz, where you need to know the rules first, and then work on that base to break the rules in ways that elevate the art?

Kirk, I think you've nailed this one.

Rules (base)
1) The course must be playable in many seasons and weather conditions.
2) The course must challenge the low handicap/scratch player.
3) The course must challenge the high handicap/shorter hitting player.

Everything else should be creativity and inspiration!

[Jeff Doerr]

I forgot rule #4...

You MUST be able to WALK the course!!!

Now, go be creative and inspired!

[Mike Nuzzo]

Don and I have broken a lot of rules down here.
It isn't easy as there are a lot of rules that get in the way.
You'll hopefully be reading a little about what I mean soon.

Jeff - I think you have too many rules.

Cheers

[Andrew Hastie]

Rules,no.But I think all designers follow a certain about of norms in there designs.
 

I love holes that don't follow the norms.That makes interesting golf.
Look at the 2nd at the OC thats not normal.

[Marty Bonnar]

Peter,
apologies, but I don't agree that Doak says 'that there are no rules'.
According to your quote, Jim Urbina appears to think that TD says this, but the wording seems to me to ACTUALLY say, "forget the stuff you've just quoted at me and be creative".
Of course there's rules. Rules like: grass grows in dirt, golf holes have length (and maybe width), water flows downhill (mostly!), golf holes are (normally) par 3, 4 or 5. Those sound like rules to me - or maybe they're guidelines. Please, someone, tell me they are guidelines. I could do with another good laugh.

FBD.

[Peter Pallotta]

Martin
no apologies necessary - I was genuinely asking for opinions on what that quote meant/entails; and yours seems like a sound interpretation.

Kirk Gill's post was in line with a least part of what I'd imagined: i.e. the Charlie Parker line abut "memorize the chord changes, and then forget them".  

What struck me, though, was that Jim Urbina - who obviously knew a LOT about gca already -- would say "Here I am, thinking I’m getting smart about all of this stuff", and in that regard reference things like 'design balance' and 'multiple tees'.  

Discussions on this site are often about whether a course "gets it right or not" in exactly those areas: and it seems to me that those kind of judgements pre-suppose the existence of some pretty fundamental "rules", whether we call them that or not. But I could well be wrong about that...and was also curious about how/when those who know the "rules" choose to break them

Peter    

Mike N -- your ""Don and I have broken a lot of rules down here. It isn't easy as there are a lot of rules that get in the way" gets to it pretty well; look forward to reading more.

[Marty Bonnar]

Peter,
agreed re Mr U. He has probably forgotten more about PRACTICAL golf course design and construction than most of this 1500 will ever know.
And all credit to his apparent openness to 'new' thinking. We should all be that open to suggestion. Stuff moves on. Technology and experience provide new evidence. Life (and just maybe golf course design) depend on adaptation. At a simple level that's maybe just about grass species selection. Deeper, it might be about the political, environmental and social impact of a golf course development.
Boy, this game is tough!
 
FBD.