Roundtable Discussion #1: Discussing golf architecture

[Kyle Harris]

I'd like to start a weekly round table where participants answer five questions about golf courses in one thread, and then post responses and actually discussion in the other. The idea being using an organized way to get thoughts and ideas on the board for discussion around one central theme.

For this thread, please limit your responses to the five questions posed. I will start another thread where specific discussions can be had from specific responses.

This week's theme involves discussing golf courses with other golfers, how those discussions progress, and what is discussed.

1. What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture?

2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin?

3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers?

4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints?

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture?

Remember, please use this thread to post responses to the above questions only and reserve discussion for the other thread.

[Ken Moum]

1. What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture?

I rarely do muchbeyond mentioning what I think makes certain holes better than others. Once in a while, if someone seems interested, I try to explain why holes that offer enticing choice and risks are more strategic.

2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin?

The difference between punishing bad shots and rewarding good choices. I particularly like to say that it's easy to make a course that's hard, but hard to make one that's interesting

3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers?

Trees and rough... and their overuse.

4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints?

Trees and rough... and their overuse.

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture?

A) That difficult = good. As in, "That's a good par four." When it's just a hard par four.

B) That trees and rough squeezing in from all sides is the hallmark of a good golf course.

C) That length is a hall mark of a good golf course.

D) That pretty courses are better than less pretty courses.

[Kyle Harris]

1. What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture?

The nature and idea behind the hazards on the golf course. It's amazing how many people don't understand that hazards were originally used on the golf course to "guide" the golfer around and highlight ideal areas. I like to talk about how my favorite hazards force me to "come as close as I dare" to make the next shot easier, but if I get too close I have no shot. This is temptation at its finest. I also like to discuss the nature of linking holes together and how the area between holes is just as important to the feel of the course as the area between the tee and green.

2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin?

I feel it's important to stress that the only thing required for a golf course is a tee box and a hole in the ground. The minute I can convince a golfer of this basic definition of a golf hole, their minds tend to be more open to the idea that what is deemed to be necessary for a golf course (trees, bunkers, deep rough, anything) may not be necessary. It also gets them thinking as to WHY the features are integrated as they are.

3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers?

Bunkers and their maintenance. I also discuss how the nature of golf and maintenance is essentially adding or eliminating variables to the next shot. The further one strays from the ideal line, the more variables enter into the equation.

4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints?

Imperfect maintenance and green speed. Most golfers respond very negatively to my elimination of the assumption that a poorly maintained golf course is a bad one.

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture?

Green is good. There is no beauty on a golf course without ornamentals or trees. Bunkers should be well-kept to "frame" the landing areas in a pleasing way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

I should give this more thought, but after golf and dinner with Mr. Doak a few weeks back, and two others, I think each question can truly and sadly be answered with "rankings."

Then comes, "Why doesn't this hole/course fit my game...."

That morphs into a specific discussion on bunker locations, focusing on ones that "unfairly" caught the golfer.

Lastly, we discuss other unusal features that "might" affect the golfers future scores badly, like Biarritz Greens, Redans, and any other feature that doesn't allow them to fire right at the pin with the prescribed club.

Sorry, but its the truth as I know it.......

[Peter Pallotta]

Kyle - the answers of someone working from a very small sample group, and who has more to learn than to teach:

1. What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture?

A: For the most part, discussion only happens on the golf course, usually a brief one at the tee, and almost always about 'strategy', as in "I think you should aim for the left side."
 
2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin?

A: I have one kind-hearted friend who indulges me. I started with an historical perspective regarding the philosophies and interplay of penal and strategic architecture. I'm sure I got most of it wrong, but I don't think he knew that

3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers?

A: To say 'green sites' would be glorifying the discussion. If no one's lost a half a dozen balls (which trumps everything) the talk is of green contours and surface/speed.  

4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints?

A: It's not resistance so much as profound disinterest, but the concept of fast and firm and its relationship to the design's playability really gets no traction at all. This one surprises me most of all; and saddens me most because of the related maintenance costs/practices issues.  

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture?

A: It does seem to me that what's most dominant is the "tough course=good architecture= justifiably expensive round" belief.

Like I say, a small sample group is involved; but that's what I experience.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

1. What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture? Depends on who, of course, but I'm a broken record on how juicy a place is. I do like to illustrate how due to the firmness, or the presentation, I can unfairly be precluded from creating a shot of a specific nature.

2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin? I'll add deception and counter-intuitive situations.
3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers? Turbo boosts are common ground, as most know instinctively what they are, even if they've never heard the term.


4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints? Ebb to the flow. A great course can have many a flaw, because the greatness is measured by the whole.

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture? 18 plus marks on a scorecard does not necessarily make a course great.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Kyle,

I was out with my brother tonight.   At one time eons ago, he was a very low handicap golfer.   Now, with a law practice and young kids, he sucks like the rest of us.  

Consider my answers in that context;

1. What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture?  

I normally try to probe slowly, and see how far I can get.   If I sense receptivity to an idea like say, being able to accept blind shots or yellowish grass, I'll probe further into my more admittedly radical agenda.

2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin?  I like to begin with the simple idea that what makes golf most different from other sports is that the playing fields are all different from each other, and at their best, should uniquely reflect their surrounds and environment and individual heritage in a way that celebrates diversity.

3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers? Difficulty, playability, conditioning, and if I can, as mentioned in #1, I'll push from there if I detect and receptivity to discussion of more sophisticated points.

4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints?  That a golf course needs to brutally punish poor shorts...that a golf course needs to be "fair"...that a golf course needs to provide beauty...that a golf course needs trees impinging on golf holes to maintain scoring integrity...that a golf course needs to contain and hold "good" shots, and that a golf shot needs to be visible and then come to final rest within a scant few feet of where it lands on the ground.   Lord knows that this is a tough battle.

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture?  That a hard, beautiful golf course is a great golf course.   Case in point...within the past month my brother and I both separately played a new private course within a short distance from where we live.   He played it in a scramble and lost seven balls yet thought it was a "great course".   I pointed out to him that it's unwalkable, that the routing is fragmented and disjointed, that a higher handicapper would find it absolutely unplayable due to longish forced carries and other penality, and that it seemed to me that the property was so severe that no golf course should ever have been built there and that the architect did the club a disservice by ever suggesting that one should have been built.   I don't think he got it, but at least he did agree with those point, yet still thinks it's a great course.  Go figure.  

[Tim Bert]

1. What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture?

Highly variable depending upon the audience.  My regular golf trip buddies and I like to do the match play by hole comparison of courses and discuss what about a particular hole gives it the edge.

2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin?

How to consider the architecture when playing shots.  It's fundamental for most people to think about "I should aim to the right when the fairway is sloping hard to the left."  I like to draw attention to the less obvious features (once I'm aware of them - it still usually takes several plays for me to get there.)  

3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers?

I find the green contours to generate a lot of discussion, unless the course being discussed has uninteresting greens.  Bunkers and poorly placed trees are also common topics.

4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints?

I find that many golfers prefer a more frequent use of water hazards on the course, and think that the water makes the holes better.  I'll admit I'm strangely attracted to the Pacific Ocean as well as the small pond in front of the Devil's Cauldron, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture?

Hard greens = bad greens.  I used to play a course in New England that had very hard greens.  While it was possible to leave a ball mark, it wasn't exactly the norm.  Even when you did leave a mark, it was not uncommon to get high bounces and balls that moved quite a bit forward after landing.  I grew quite attracted to the greens over time, once I adapted my play to them.  As long as hard greens aren't built on a plateau (or completely fronted with severe bunkers) with no options for approach, I think they can be pretty cool.


Mike Cirba - You should direct your brother to Gillette Ridge.  He'll lose lots of balls and have a blast.  Have you played it yet?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba - You should direct your brother to Gillette Ridge.  He'll lose lots of balls and have a blast.  Have you played it yet?

Tim,

Somehow, I think my brother would find Gillette Ridge in his top echelon.  

I have not played it yet, and I probably won't, now that I left Mother C*GN* in early April.   Missing GR will leave a very serious deficiency in my resume, for certain.  

After all, Ron Whitten seemed enthralled.  

Looking forward to meeting you at the Dixie Cup.

[Kyle Harris]

Bump.

[Tom Huckaby]

CAVEAT:  smart ass answers to follow....

I assume my audience is a group of regular golfers - not the geeks in here.  Therefore:

1.  What sort of concepts and ideas do you discuss with others regarding golf architecture?
none - are you kidding?  They don't give a rat's ass about golf architecture  - all they care about are conditions.  When I even mention anything about it, the eye-rolling starts.

2. When discussing golf architecture with a inexperienced, yet eager to learn golfer, with what concept do you begin?
I've yet to meet such a person - what's it like?

3. What golf courses features are most discussed with other golfers?
conditions, speed of greens, length of course, conditions, speed of greens, cart girl hotness, conditions, speed of greens.

4. On what ideas do you most encounter resistance or opposing viewpoints?
trying to get them to even consider that the design of the course can have any relevance to them

5. What do you believe are the most common misconceptions about the importance and concepts of golf architecture?
that it matters as much or more than conditions.

It's a crazy world outside this forum, Kyle.

[Kyle Harris]

Bump for Tom Paul.