Is visual deception an obligation-function of an architect ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato once posted pictures of a fairway from the tee.

It appeared as if the fairway was an impossible target to hit.

However, when approaching the DZ it became apparent that there was more than ample width, despite the view from the tee.

Is it the obligation/function of the architect to cause the golfer to feel uncomfortable ?

Is it the obligation/function of the architect to visually erode the confidence of the golfer ?

An example of this is the 8th hole at NGLA, the bottle hole.

When the flag is on the right side of the green, the approach is visually intimidating, despite the knowledge that the green is rather expansive.

The fear of missing the green, short or right, is overpowering.

Despite familiarity with the size and configuration of the green, the visual signals are so overpowering that fear of failure is heightened to the extent that it affects the golfers ability to properly plan and execute the shot.

It's not that either shot is unduely difficult, it's that the architect's presentation is visually deceptive and intimidating.

The architect has made the shot appear far more difficult than it actually is.

Isn't that an inherent obligation-function of the architect ?

Can you cite other similar situations ?

[Norbert P]

  With the advent of GPS and yardage markers, I don't think designers are focused as much as they once were on fooling the foozlers.  Though yardage isn't everything, it does pretty much dictate the club chosen for the next shot.  There's this "Closer to the pin, the better" idea that directs many players to just "go for it".  Regardless of the risks.  

[Steve Kline]

But the fooling doesn't have to always be done in regards to yardage. And sometimes even when you know the exact yardage, if your eye tells you someting else the deception can still wreak havoc on your game. An example from the tee is hole #5 at Pinehurst #2. You can only see the far right part of the fairway from the tee. It's a "comfortable" shot to hit it there and leaves a flatter lie but it leaves you a bad angle to the green. However, hitting it over the grass bunker that's only a short distance off the tee on the proper line is not easy because you are never quite sure of where the fairway is since you can't see it.

There is also deception on the green with breaks. Having a green tilt just slightly the opposite way one might expect because of the natural fall of the land is a great deception trick. I watched pro after pro at 2005 U.S. Open at Pinehurst misread a putt to the back left pin on hole 12. Every one of them read almost a foot of break when it was a virtually straight putt.

I think these deceptions are what make a course fun to play on a repeated basis. Trying to figure all of them out and remembering them is a great challenge.

[Michael Whitaker]

...it's that the architect's presentation is visually deceptive and intimidating.

The architect has made the shot appear far more difficult than it actually is.

Isn't that an inherent obligation-function of the architect ?

Can you cite other similar situations ?

This is what first made me a fan of Mike Strantz' work... the level of visual intimidation.

There are numerous examples from his courses, but my favorite might be the opening teeshot at Tobacco Road. The first time through it seems daunting, but you later learn that the challenge is mostly visual.

Click here for a look at the teeshot on #1

A similar teeshot faces the golfer at the opening hole at Black Mesa in New Mexico. Again, fear through visual intimidation.

Click here to review Ran's description of Black Mesa's first hole

As Mike Strantz stated on his website: My philosophy has been highly influenced by the work and words of the great Allister MacKenzie, who wrote that "It is an important thing in golf to make holes look much more difficult than they really are. People get more pleasure out of [playing] a hole which looks almost impossible and yet is not so difficult as it appears."

[Pat Brockwell]

Can't we consider also the corollary view that a hole can be made to look easier than it plays?  Isn't that just another form of deception that gives the design subtlety, depth and interest?  It is a feature that, IMO, tempts the player to "do something foolish" and distinguish the design. I say this because there are examples of this at Black Mesa on the 7th and 14th, both reachable par 4's that produce plenty of bogeys and above.  To the original question of obligation and function I guess that really depends on just what kind of designer the designer wants to be, or what kind of designer the owner wants him to be. I prefer the kind of designer that makes me think and rethink.

[David_Madison]

It is an important function. If done right, you should be able to think your way past the visual deception, especially if you can discern that the preferred shot is to a place that might be hidden by something the architect did. A real simple example is the first hole tee shot on the newer Forest Creek course. A little rise blocks the view of the left 1/3 of the fairway, so you might not even know it's there. But that's the best place to come into the green from.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I don't think it's an OBLIGATION of any architecture but it most certainly is a useful architectural tool and technique if an architect wants to use it.

In my personal opinion, hiding or making deceptive reward areas and situations is better than hiding or making deceptive risk situation, but even the latter I don't mind in some situations.

[tlavin]

I agree with Tom Paul, that visual deception is not an obligatory tool, but certainly it should be utilized as an occasional element in design.  From the simplest device, like orienting a tee box slightly away from the fairway toward the rough, to the more complex distractions, this is something that provides another layer of cerebration in the mind of a golfer.  And that is a good thing.

[Dan Moore]

If not overdone I think deception can greatly enhance the playing characteristics of a hole.  Simple partial blindness helps keep a hole fresh time after time even when you know what is out there.  An obligation, probably not, but definitely something, having seen many examples in Langford Moreau's work, I like.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Once, during a visit to George Bahto when he was working at ECCC, I got the chance to play the back nine and there was one hole that was a real fooler, I think it's the 14th. Not an overly long par 4, with a large two level kidney shaped green set in a bowl and protected by a huge mound in front, which set into the concave section of the 'kidney'. The approach was a bit uphill and I actually hit a shot towards what I thought was the right side of the green. When I walked up I found that I was on a closely mown area but it wasn't the green, that was 15 or so yards ahead of my ball.

Obligation or function, I don't know, but very worthwhile to use.

[wsmorrison]

I don't think there is any obligation to create visual deception.  It is a nice quality if not overused.   I don't think it was all that prevalent in the classic era and I'm not sure how much it is used today.  Fairness in American golf is a design practice we never should have embraced.

I think one of the finest examples of visual deception can be found at the 6th hole of Indian Creek CC in Miami, FL.

Standing on the tee, you don't see any landing area over the field of what appears to be 7 bunkers on the left.  In fact there are only 4 bunkers in the fairway complex.  The other 3 bunkers are on a diagonal short left to greenside.  However, they look to be one giant bunker field with no landing area beyond.  Yet there is a 200-yard space between the fairway bunker complex and the first of the 3 diagonal bunkers. In addition, there is about a 50 yard difference between the middle diagonal bunker at the green end and the last bunker on the right.

Flynn did not create the visual deception alone.  It was integrated with contours that effect decision making.  If you take the tee shot directly over the center of the bunker field you can be rewarded with a turbo boost that kicks the ball towards the green leaving a shorter shot into a slightly elevated green.  If you take what appears to be the only landing area or safe area away from the bunkers, the ball kicks right reducing the roll and leaving an approach which requires carrying the last diagonal bunker on the right.  This bunker has another deception.  The top line is configured in a way that makes it appear to be perpendicular to the line of play from the right side of the fairway when in fact it is on a diagonal and you need a full club or two to carry the right side of the bunker onto the green.

Tee shot



Green approach (beyond the landing area)



Aerial photograph

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,



This is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about.

No matter how many times you play the hole, the signal to your eye, that the architect intended, is intimidating.

It makes you uncomfortable, ill at ease and thus can adversely affect your play.

Jim Kennedy,

I know the hole well, it is # 14 and it's a neat little hole.

[Mark_Fine]

The beauty of deception and illusion is that often times the golfer doesn't even realize what has happened or how he or she has been deceived.  This practice was very prelavent in the past and many of the best architects still use it today.  Some quick examples include, skyline greens, trees near a green or well beyond a green, different size trees, different size bunkers, bunkers beyond other bunkers, the raised edges of bunkers to hide green surfaces (mounds can serve the same purpose), false fronts, bunkers well short of greens or even beyond a green,...one could go on and on.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Before the age of laser range finders, very large bunkers appeared to be closer than they were, thus, they seemed to be an easy carry, luring the golfer to attempt same.

There's a story about Tom Watson on # 1 at ANGC during a practice round.

He hit a good drive up the right side only to have the ball land in the bunker.  Shocked, he pulled out a range finder and discovered that the bunker had been lengthened over the summer.

This is another reason that ranging devices should be eliminated, including GPS.

[Dan Kelly]

I think one of the finest examples of visual deception can be found at the 6th hole of Indian Creek CC in Miami, FL.

Standing on the tee, you don't see any landing area over the field of what appears to be 7 bunkers on the left.  In fact there are only 4 bunkers in the fairway complex.  The other 3 bunkers are on a diagonal short left to greenside.  However, they look to be one giant bunker field with no landing area beyond.  Yet there is a 200-yard space between the fairway bunker complex and the first of the 3 diagonal bunkers. In addition, there is about a 50 yard difference between the middle diagonal bunker at the green end and the last bunker on the right.

Cool, yes -- like a trompe l'oeil painting.

But does it really "work" after the first time you play the hole?

[wsmorrison]

Dan,

It works on a number of people.  Something like this can still cause a disconnect between the mind and body even after repeated play.  Maybe the photos don't do the example justice, but it really looks like there's no place to land the ball on ICCC #6 and instinct causes a lot of shots to be hit to the safer appearing right side.

As far as the toplines of bunkers being manipulated to create a false sense of angle or distance foreshortening, I agree that this sort of feature isn't as powerful over time.  For instance, you know you need to hit 7-iron to the right side of the green rather than 8-iron so you do so by memory or a friendly reminder from the caddy.

[Ted Kramer]

Wayne,

Great pics, great example.

-Ted

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

The real genius in the design is to have the golfer feel uncomfortable about the shot no matter how many times he's played it previously.

To craft something so powerful that the signal to the eye overcomes the intellect, that's the key.