[Mark Bourgeois]

I have been thinking about this one for about three months.  Actually, more like 15 years but until recently I didn't have enough data points (holes seen) to make any connections.

What is the secret of building a hole that has "scale?"  For a while I thought it was the obvious: make that sucker really long!

I have played my share of long holes, though, and never got a sense of "scale."  Perhaps I should explain. Have you ever stepped on a tee and, for no understandable reason, had the thought pop into your head, "Now that's what a golf hole is supposed to look like!"  Think about it, is there some kind of "ideal golf hole" imprinted deep in our brains, some model of perfection, that we subconsciously use to rate every hole we see -- and then a rarity comes along and releases the thought?

For me, it's a hole with "scale:" it has a grandeur or sweep and vista to it.

Here was the first time, and for a long time the only time, I saw a hole and got that feeling; 530-yard par-5 4th, Bethpage (Black):


Years later, I stepped on a tee and for only the second time got that feeling.  I couldn't find a photo from the tee, unfortunate because it would help you see what I'm getting at. 485-yard par-4(!) 5th, Pinehurst #2:


I thought on these for a long time.  What was it about these two holes that triggered the reaction?  Did they fit some deeply hidden template, or employ a golf design variant of the Golden Ratio; i.e., rose to "golf math" perfection?

Then a few months ago I played Rockport Country Club -- and found two such holes!  Considering that Coore was given an absolutely flat piece of ground (a clue to this secret of scale I think), surely the man deserves his station in the golf world.

Those holes are the 410-yard, par-4 2nd and the 540-yard, par-5 14th -- sorry for the absolutely horrible quality of the photos!

2nd hole, from the tee -- note amazing "convex" bunker right: it's like a "lump" of sand; how do architects do that?


Green site, from approach


Left side of green; compare size of swale to golfer: Coore used enormous "Maxwell Rolls" on the greens; also note random clump of earth in back bunker, just behind and to right of golf bag


Right side of green


14th hole, from tee; again, apologies for poor pic quality -- flag is right of bunker / tree formation


View from landing area


Approach -- note fairway washboard: lots of these out here, solely due to the hand of man


Green; Coore set his fairways bucking and heaving then let those waves crash right through the greens


Another view


Looking back on the hole from behind


I've got a few questions. When you look at these holes, are there any similarities you see that might produce this sense of "scale?" (Although two of them are par 5s, none of them would be considered really long by today's standards. Another clue I think: they look much longer than the card yardage; is this an essential element of "scale?")

Have you ever got this feeling on a tee? What holes and why? What was it about those holes? Did any or all of them have this slippery quality of "scale," at least how I've (poorly) defined it?

Now for the tough ones: If you set out to build a hole with "scale," what principles or rules of thumb might you follow? Is there some equivalent of the Golden Ratio? Would you know in advance you were creating one of these beauties, or is it down to inspiration and chance?

I have a few ideas but am not certain of them, thus the post.

Thanks,
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

I view the photo of the 4th at Bethpage's Black Course in a completely different way.  I cannot stand the look of the bunkering and believe it entirely too big in scale in one case and poorly integrated in another.  Only the bunkering at the green end is suitable to me.

Take the first bunker on the left.  I really like the placement of a bunker there but it does not fit in to the surrounds very well.  There is an upslope to the leading edge that I don't think looks or works well.    The front right corner of the bunker is hidden and obscured by the surrounds and the big cape on the right (I don't like these big capes at all as they look too contrived and repeated over and over on the course).  The fairway line along the left doesn't integrate well with the bunker either.

Now, the big bunker on the first ridge.  A complete failure in my mind on many levels.  It is too overt thus drawing too much attention.  It dominates everything taking away from the very interesting natural contours you are struck by this bigger than big man-made looking, cape overloaded bunker.    Naturalism foresaken for look-at-meism taken to an extreme.  There should be a very cool looking "S" curve subtly presented.  Instead, you get this.  I know many on this site love it as do others that enjoy playing the course.  I do not.

[Jim Thompson]

Something to inspire...





What happens when you overlay these two patterns on your favorites?
2-d overview for object positioning:


point of view location and sizing:

[Mark Bourgeois]

Holy crap, Wayne, you don't like the Glacier Bunker?!

It's that Sean Arble, isn't it? ?!*@ Bunkerman strikes again!

Forget that hole then. Is there a hole you've come across that had a sort of mysterious scale to it? Not necessarily a long hole, rather one that felt "big," perhaps despite what was listed on the card for the hole?

Mark

[Matt MacIver]

From first glance you might be liking the effect of perspective and depth perception.  It appears that the holes you've chosen either have uphill 2nd shots (BPB and #2, slightly) or elevated bunkers or green surrounds.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Yes, Matt, I think you've hit on one element. The greens are at different altitude than the tees, although interestingly some are above and some are below. No idea why they can be higher or lower; you'd think it would be one or the other but not both!

Jim, your first graphic helps me with anothe possible aspect: not outright length, but the relationship of the length to the width. For all these holes have a width to them.

What else?

Mark

[Jim Thompson]

Mark,

I just laid the triangle over your first photo and al of the bunkers and faiway lines start and stop within sections of the lines.  It was almost spooky!  I don't know how to make it work with the software I have at hand, but I'll create and post the example once I get home to photshop tonight.

JT

[Phil McDade]

Wayne:

Doesn't either Pepper Pike CC or TCC right next door have something of a similar hole to BBlack's 4th, with a series of bunkers carved into a ridge? I assume you like the look of that better.

It would be the hole top-center of this aerial, with a green sort of tucked into a cove of trees:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=18268

Mark B.:

A hole that I've always thought has a really strong sense of scale is the 6th at Lawsonia. See this thread on the upcoming Langford/Moreau tour for a pic of Lawsonia's 6th, looking back from behind the green. One of the (many) neat things about the 6th is that you truly get a sense of its scale both at the tee and looking back on it, in part because of where L/M put it on the course. See this:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=30273

I would think it might be tough to create a sense of scale with too much blindness, although certainly the pictures I've seen of NGLA's 3rd (the Alps hole) create a sense of scale that's pretty imposing. I think sometimes architects on modern courses go for too much scale, in that they resort to the standby set-up of an elevated tee, to a broad fairway located in a valley, with perhaps a dramatic curve, and a large green with large traps set up on something of a rise. I've seen this design time and again on modern courses, and it tends to bore me, because it gets banal after awhile.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

No, I do not.  I don't like several things about Bethpage's Black Course, the massive bunkering is one thing, the overly large and numerous capes and the greens are others.  I like the routing, the topography and the hole designs in general.  I think Tillinghast and certainly Jones were not good with subtle and restraint.

Phil,

You refer to the 15th at TCC in Pepper Pike, OH.  Here is a drawing of original version and a current photograph:

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that in the case of #4 at Bethpage Black, the "scale" factor is augmented by the presence of secondary elements (i.e. bunkers) that overwhelm the core elements of the hole (i.e. tee, fairway, rough, green).  That the player's eye is drawn toward bunkers that are wider than the fairway--bunkers that dominate the scene--is significant, I believe.

A few examples for me:

- Holes 10 and 17 at the Architects Club--the George Thomas and Stanley Thompson replica holes.  On both these holes the scale of bunkers, combined with views across the site unencumbered by trees, gave me that feeling of "scale."
- Most holes at Vista Links--The dramatic undulations of the site lend themselves to a grand scale of the course.  Lots of dramatic downhill drops + not a lot of trees = big scale, it seems.
- The 5th at Wintonbury Hills is only 330, but it plays from a tee perched at likely the highest point o the property.  Therefore, the player gets a look over much of the golf course: a lovely view.

[Phil McDade]

Wayne:

Thanks -- don't know if that hole is dramatic in scale, but it's a great-looking hole.

[Steve Kline]

The first hole that came to my mind was #11 at Pine Valley. Both my dad and I felt that that hole just laid perfectly on the ground. I really can't say why but it jsut had a feeling to us.

[Bruce Katona]

As I'm sure some of the other folks will opine, scale has three elements: length, width and height (we'' keep time out of this for now).  If any of these three feel or look out of proportion, the "scale" of the hole will not fell right to the eye.

A perfect visual of proper scale is #12 at AGNC ....short slightly downhill par 3 to a green elevated above the creek.  Background vertical dimension to terminate the eyes view is the tall tree canopy...The perspective of the hole is one dimensional, where the focal point (green) is framed by the trees on the left, the creek right and short, the trees long and the 13th tee to the right.

[JMorgan]

Does anyone know of an architect who has actually used golden sections to design a course?  I remember discussions here about using fractals, or attempts thereof.  The science nerd in me wants to know.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

These are great posts, very helpful.  Jim, that is spooky -- is the conjectures that Tillie and Ross could have done this credible? I kinda doubt it with Coore.

But, Sean, that first pic, being something of an "infinity hole," doesn't seem to fit what I'm looking for.  It's a beautiful hole and I can see the grandeur and sweep, but for some reason the holes that I get stuck on are framed by trees, although the playing corridors are wide.

Here are a few thoughts these posts have inspired, which I throw out for discussion:

1) I think the tee-to-green elevation change (higher or lower) helps "present" the flag to the golfer on the tee. (This seems to be the case with Lawsonia 6, too.)
2) Related to 1), notice in the pictures how the greens sit at an angle to the line off the tee.
3) Despite sitting off to the side, the greens (and flags) are visible.  This means a prescribed amount of width: line of sight from tee to green.
4) For some reason, most fall in a distance range of 485-540 yards -- although Rockport 2 is only 410 yards! Is this a "magic distance" that allows us to perceive the flag as far away, yet not so far as to be barely or not visible.

That TCC hole seems like it might adhere to some of these ideas.

All of these in some way get back to the idea that the flag must be presented in a certain fashion to the golfer standing on the tee. I saw a hole last week that felt like a near miss.  It was of the prescribed length, the playing corridor was wide and the green, although higher than the tee, tilted forward so as to present the flag to the golfer. BUT: it's a straight hole, and didn't trigger a full reaction.

Mark

[wsmorrison]

Scale is very important.  When Philadelphia CC removed so many trees, it was critical that the bunkers were returned to their large size so as to fit the expansive views.  

Merion has scale.  When you look from the clubhouse or the 18th green at the 14th hole, everything fits in scale.  When you walk past (hopefully not into) the first fairway bunker on the right, it is enormous but fits the scale of the hole and the sweeping view.

Kittansett has scale that is better seen with the tree management program they are working.

Indian Creek, TCCs in Pepper Pike and Brookline, Cascades, CCV James River, Eagles Mere, Washington GCC all  have scale.

Rolling Green, Manufacturers, Lehigh. Lancaster to a lesser extent and others were built to scale but trees have compromised the presentation.  Lancaster and Manufacturers have embarked on a tree management process.  Rolling Green removed some trees (not nearly enough) and have replanted some trees in the exact locations they were removed!  Lehigh needs some work.

Shinnecock presents an excellent demonstration of scale.  Here are a few photos that show what I mean:

From the very first tee:



9th Hole, no words necessary



11th Hole



14th Hole



15th Hole (some trees need to come out on the right to expose more of the green though it is the property line and there are homes that are better off hidden)



16th Hole

[RT]

Luffenham Heath no. 17

[Ron Farris]

The Secret is 1.618! (Better Known as the "Golden Proportion".

[Jeff Doerr]

Mark

For me the best way to obtain scale is to let a hole be seen as part of the whole.  Make it difficult to distinguish where the hole begins and ends.  This is part of the problem with trees blocking out what should be the wider vistas which give scale.  Below is a hole in scale because it is limitness, nothing impedes how it flows as part of its surroundings.

Wow, does Pennard draw me to play there!

I like a hole that flows out before you. This is #8 at Bandon Dunes. You can also get the same sense on an uphill that climbs to a skyline.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

Pics I've seen from Tilie's day of the HHA features on Bethpage Black, Baltusrol Lower, and Quaker Ridge, among others, look MUCH less artificial and contrived.

That's not Tillinghast's look, as much as others want to excuse it with notions of easier modern maintenance.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Okay, I was frustrated at not being able to find pics of the 5th hole tee and approach on Pinehurst #2, so I drove down and got a few, which I include here for the sake of completeness.

Also, if anyone's still reading this thread, could we get elaboration on the use of the Golden Ratio in design? Ron Farris and Jim Thompson, I'm calling you out!

5th hole, from the tee, Pinehurst #2 -- note the movement of the land, the angle of the green, the width, and the visibility of the green (flag) from the tee, all elements of my "personal" scale:


5th hole, approach, Pinehurst #2

Mark

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Wayne, I certainly respect your opinion but I must stand up and fight for this one...

Regarding, BB #4 -

The first time I was ever inspired by a golf hole was my first glimpse of the fourth from the third green.  Both the design, the scale, and the bunkering, fits my eye.  The hole created emotions that were not unlike the first time I saw a great painting or listened to Beethoven's 9th.  It's legacy for me is that it led me on a quest to find others which made me feel the same way (and there have been very few).  That's the greatest compliment I can give a design.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

I think Tillinghast and certainly Jones were not good with subtle and restraint.

The Black was not meant to be subtle and restrained.  The visual nature of the bunkers was intended to dominate and intimidate.  However, being penal is not necessarily a negaitive trait.  It just represents a different school of design.

“It should prove one of the most exacting three-shotters I know of anywhere. In locating and designing the green, which can only be gained by a most precise approach from the right, I must confess that I was a trifle scared myself, when I looked back and regarded the hazardous route that must be taken by a stinging second shot to get into position to attack the green.” - Tillinghast

[Ulrich Mayring]

How's this one for scale?



This actually shows several holes. In the foreground you see the second shot into the par-5 16th of Bad Münstereifel, Germany. The ball can be seen in the left center, at about the height of the bell. From there it's a lay-up through the gap, staying short of the two trees - or you can go for the green and clear the bushes from a severe downhill lie, have fun

To the left of and behind the green you see hole 17. The tee shot should clear the gap, where you can see the footpath zig-zagging upwards. After that the hole doglegs off to the left and you probably have a blind shot into the green. Behind that, towards the church, the 18th hole. There's another hole at the top right of the picture, should be the 6th.

Ulrich

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - thanks for this thread.

I get that expansive feeling when the trees seem not to be framing a 'golf hole' as much as framing a 'vista'. That is, when the trees frame not the playing corriders but the "non-architecturally-significant" space that surrounds -- and includes -- that corrider/field of play.  

"Non-architecturally-significant" is probably not the best term, but I hope you know what I mean.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()