Beneficial controversy

[TEPaul]

Is it feasible or even possible in practice and what exactly does it mean?

How willing are today’s architects to create controversy with its inherent criticisms?

C.B Macdonald said this about controversy:

"Rest assured, however, when a controversy is hotly contested over several years as to whether this or that hazard is fair, it is the kind of hazard you want and it has real merit. Where there is unanimous opinion that such and such a hazard is perfect, one usually finds in commonplace. I know of no classic hole that doesn't have its decriers."



It’s probably pretty important to note that Macdonald talked about the benefit of controversy apparently only in the context of the “hazard” feature.

I even wonder if he intended to present the subject of beneficial controversy ONLY in the context of the hazard feature.  

Is that an important or necessary distinction to make? And if it is what exactly does that mean?

Does it have something to do basically only with the concept of risk and reward around which basic strategies are contingent?

Or does it have mostly to do with the apparently ever-shifting perceptions of what's fair in golf and what's not?

[TEPaul]

Off the top of my head I'd submit that "controversy" is benefical or maybe ONLY benefical if the subject of the controversy has both decriers and supporters--although to what measure of both is pretty hard to say.

I doubt something could be benefically controversial over time if it was almost entirely decried against.

Furthermore, how could this be determined?

How could it be any other way but to be submitted to the so-called "test of time"?

Another interesting question to ask is if there are any holes extant that have been considered great over time that do not still have some decriers for whatever reasons?

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, To you last point, it isn't what's fair in golf, it's whats fair in someones mind as it pertains to golf.

This divide could easily be settled if people would just accept that in golf everything is fair. Sure it might require absolute precision, but it requires that precision from everyone.

[TEPaul]

"This divide could easily be settled if people would just accept that in golf everything is fair."

EVERYTHING is fair in golf?

Adam:

I doubt any of us could find a single golfer who would subsribe to that notion.  

[Tom_Doak]

For many years, you couldn't read anything about me without the word "controversial" making several appearances.  I've always had my supporters and my decriers -- and on the whole, it hasn't been bad for me.  In fact, if you think about it, nearly all of the younger architects who have been successful lately have been labeled as controversial -- Jim Engh and Mike Strantz chief among them.

Bill Coore has never been labeled controversial, even though his work is sometimes very edgy.  But if he hadn't been teamed up with a big name, I doubt his work would have generated nearly as much attention.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom P:

One of the great comments on this subject was made by Pete Dye years ago when he was starting out -- he saw the huge following Trent Jones had and decided that if he were to be successful he would need to favor designs that were a complete opposite of what Jones was doing.

No doubt controversy ensured with certain designs (e.g. railroad ties, small greens, etc, etc). But the simple fact is that different interpretations are what makes design so unique.

No doubt certain people will tend to like certain outcomes.

Frankly, the worst thing people can say to a designer is not that he / she is controversial but BORING.

[Eric Franzen]

Could this be labeled as an attempt to be controversial?
They certainly knew that a feature like this would generate some attention.
And is it beneficial?

[Mark_F]

Tom P:

"I even wonder if he intended to present the subject of beneficial controversy ONLY in the context of the hazard feature."

Maybe the last sentence in the statement is an indication?

"I know of no classic hole that doesn't have its decriers."

How does the 6th at NGLA fit into this paradigm?

From pictures I have seen it doesn't appear to look particularly fearsome, hazard wise, yet the green itself is something else, is it not? I can imagine quite a few people decry the excessive contouring of a green on an otherwise benign looking hole?  

Do we consider a green a "hazard?" If we do, is it only an (obviously?) severe green that we consider a hazard?

Maybe controversy is basically asking players to hit shots that aren't the type of shots that they think are supposed to be hit, or, in a round, have been asked to hit to that particular point?

[Tom_Doak]

Eric:

I don't think the waterfalls on the Trump courses are meant to be controversial.  I think they're meant to be opulent.  But, perhaps I'm misreading the man.  He knows his own personality is controversial, and it's working for him.

[Jason Connor]

I think they're meant to be opulent.

That was my guess.  

But I think the good controversy is good because it isn't made to appeal to the least common denominator.

A course that we GCAers would LOVE may not be loved by the masses.

And a course that resort-going golfers love won't be loved by us.

So I think that trying to please a particular group and staying true to the goal can be controversial.  Because you're trying to please one slice of the golfing population.

[Sean_A]

I was down at Burnham again today and the subject of the 15th came up.  I asked the other players if they didn't think it was controversial that angle into the green from the fairway is terrible because you almost always have to go over the edge of the dune and often times it is blind.  The fairway is left of the pic so you can see the trouble that dune would cause.


And this after hitting a a fairly narrow fairway from a blind tee shot!  The tee is the one seen middle-right.  The proposed "safe" fairway would be out around where the path ends.

Whereas the guy who misses it right often doesn't have these difficulties.  The chief problem is rough.  None of the other three ever thought about the hole in this way - which really surprised me.  I suggested that perhaps there should be a bit of fairway to the right that part of may be seen, but if hit (with a layup) one would not get a view of the green.  More or less presenting an option.  All three said this would be too wierd!  

Despite these crazy reverse strategy flaws the hole works for two reasons.  1st, for the good players, they can be confident of going over the dune with the approach and generating enough spin (from the fairway) to at least hold the back of the green. 2nd, the green gathers from the right so one can ground one onto the green even if they may not be able to get close to the pin.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
From that quote, I'd guess that Macdonald did think of beneficial controversy solely in terms of hazards. The man himself, the time and place, and the state of golf course architecture in America back then also lead me to believe that. Could Macdonald have even imagined any controversy over what constituted great golf holes (as he found them in the UK), or of what he'd acheved at NGLA, or of the fact that he and his small set were - and should be - the definitive voice of and experts on golf and golf course architecture in America? All of which is to say: I think controversy meant one thing then, and another now.

Some 80 years later, the art and craft of golf course architecture in America has matured: i.e. it has a well-documented history, it's a full time profession, it serves a vastly larger market, and the marketplace itself is fragmented and diverse, and to greater extent public.  Are the stakes higher for today's archtects when it comes to flirting with controversy? I don't know; I'm guessing the answer is yes. But, whether the answer is yes or no, I''d still wonder how the modern architect would even try to achieve it. I can't imagine that a hazard -- any hazard -- would do the trick. And I'd say that the existence of proven principles of golf course design on the one hand combined with the existence of about 100 years worth of designs both good and bad means that today it would take a truly outlandish feature or piece of work to create the kind of controversy that Macdonald was talking about....but then, it wouldn't in fact be the kind of controversy Macdonald was talking about.

I think I'd put it much differently than Matt Ward did. I'd say that in today's marketplace of ideas and ideals, I'd be more inclined to search out a course described as boring than one described as controversial....especially if the architect in question had done fine work in the past. First, because some -- just some -- aspects of golf course architecture are subjective and matters of taste, so I just might like boring more than most; second, because I'd be inclined to bet that the course wasn't in fact boring at all, at least not in the context of the fundamental principles of good golf course architecture; and third, for the simple reason that, in today's world, it seems to me to take more guts and determination (and even vision) to risk being boring than it does to risk being controversial.        

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter's post above makes two points. His first point is:

"And I'd say that the existence of proven principles of golf course design on the one hand combined with the existence of about 100 years worth of designs both good and bad means that today it would take a truly outlandish feature or piece of work to create the kind of controversy that Macdonald was talking about...."

His second point is that when he hears reports about "boring" courses designed by interesting designers, Peter takes it as a contra-indicator. Such reports are often a signal that the course is very interesting indeed.

It struck me that both sorts of things are involved in current controversies about Bandon Trails.

First, the 14th at BT is a wildly controversial hole. Perhaps the most controversial hole built in the last decade.

Second, I've heard people say that the inland holes at BT are boring. As noted, a perfect contra-indicator.

These reactions to BT suggest that its reputation has a very bright future. That's certainly my view.

Bob
 

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

On that first photo above, although nothing to do with controversy, the contours (the things I generally call "toplines") in an over-all sense---eg all the way from the ground to the bunkers to the tree line behind are some of the loveliest I have ever seen on a golf hole in how they all flow and twist and turn against and with one another---again in a over-all sense.

Aesthetically, THAT, is my kind of golf hole!  

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

THAT post above really says something, particuarly that last paragraph. You really are thinking your own unique thoughts! Good for you.

When I get back home I think I'll add a Behr quote that I think precisely paints a picture of what you're saying there.