[Forrest Richardson]

When you boil it all down — the posts, the questions, the decisions and the "I hate it's", "I love it's", "It works", "It sucks" and "It could have been better's" — does the simple element of shock value make or break a golf hole or course?

For example, when we lambast a course for being lame and uninteresting, is it because we fail to shock the first-time visitor? When we over-do a design, are we guilty of too much "shock" in a design?

Could it be that the right amount of this ingredient in a golf course design recipe is what we are ultimately looking for in all courses? Instead of the aesthetics, the bunkers, the natural land or the hard-to-define stuff such as flow and routing — are we better to just look at what is "shocking" and weigh that as a decent gauge of why a course (or hole, if you prefer) reaches up and grabs us...or why it just sits there and seems less than it should be?

[Chip Gaskins]

Forest-

I would say Tobacco Road is a bit of a "shock factor" for the first time visitor.  The new course up in BC Canada probably the same.

Wild Horse is probably the least "shocking" course I have played in ages, yet I could play it everyday forever.

At the end of the day, some pieces of property are just more shocking than others: Black Diamond, Cabo Del Sol, Cape Kidnappers, etc.

[Forrest Richardson]

One seems more at one end — the other at another. Does the thought work? Can you describe a course working — or not — based on the level of shock value...perhaps in how the particular level works with the land, the feel and the clientele?

[Adam Clayman]

What's so shocking about the world's greatest courses?
 I doubt too much.
The answer is No! It just ain't that simple, otherwise everyone could do it. (build great stuff)


I heard a new technical term the other day. WFC.

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam, my friend. That is a weak post. Please do better. Explain yourself, be more inspiring. What do you mean by "greatest courses"...in who's eyes? Adam's? Forrest's? Matt Ward's? Brad Klien's? Nicklauses's? Ran's? Or, the great-credit-card-carrying golf consumer who has more clout than any of those?

[Phil_the_Author]

Maybe "shock" is the correct word, but a better phrase may be that the player, despite what he may have heard before stepping on the course, is still amazed by what he sees.

For example, Bethpage Black (what else!).

Everyone who hasn't wants to play it and "see it for themselves," in all the many times in my 400 or so rounds on the course, I've yet to see a single person who was there for the first time that wasn't standing on the 4th tee and simply stunned by the rising plateaus and massive bunkers including the "Glacier" cross-bunker to the upper level. Everyone is stunned by the sight the first time... they don't expect it.

It was that way for me the first time I went through the gate at Augusta National during the Masters and was taken aback by the 16th green (I entered in by the gate near it).

Likewise Pinehurst #2 will always be mostly a cow pasture to me as I was completely blown away by it's lack of any outstanding features (just my very humble opinion).

My first time walking the green at The Old Course (it was a Sunday afternoon) and seeing the "Valley of Sin" I was struck by how one has to actually see it to understand what an absolutely miraculous putt Rocca made to take John Daly into a playoff.

Joyful surprise sets the great courses apart in my opinion.

[Bill_McBride]

I'll use Peacock Gap as an example.

You play the first few holes and it's pretty routine, good stuff but nothing with "shock value."

Then you step on the 6th tee, par 3 across the pond with an OTT green with a steep slope down toward the water and tiers top left and top right, and the shock is a frisson, whoops, something new here!

Then the seventh, short par 4 with a double plateau green and huge mound short right and again, it's like nothing you've seen on this course and nothing you've seen recently.

Shock value.  It gets your attention here and it makes Peacock Gap much more than it ever was before and makes it an experience where before it was mundane.  That's what shock value can do.  It can make what was pretty boring memorable.

[Forrest Richardson]

I think Phillip is on to something — "people want to see it for themselves." Regardless of whether this is overtly the feeling, I do believe that is an element of what makes a golf course interesting, and perhaps "valuable" in the eyes of all kinds of golf consumers.

At Peacock we went for shock value, at least partially. Amidst a rather tranquil site there is the element of surprise. So far it works.

Shock value, of course, does not have to be the kind that kills you or wounds your spirit. For example, Oakmont has plenty of shock value — but it also has subtlety and small details that on their own are not "shocking."

What I see far too often is the tendency to be subtle, wherein the reality is    b   o   r   e   d   o   m  .

[Jason Topp]

I think Fazio has been so successful as the anti-Dye.  In other words - no shock value.  His courses are generally playable for all levels of player, and the harsh contours of Dye courses have been smoothed away. 


For the most part, his courses are a pleasant experience for the player rather than a shocking experience.

[Tom_Doak]

I would agree that Tom Fazio's work is rarely "shocking".  He's been commercially successful, rankings-successful, and artistically panned by many critics (unless you consider the panelist class to be "art critics", which I don't).

I'm not sure that "shock" is the word I would use, Forrest, but I have always thought that great courses tend to be much more radical than they are given credit for today.  Pine Valley was considered outrageous when it opened.  Those Egan features at Pebble Beach were really wild.  Riviera has greens with gull wings and bunkers in the middle!  Even after 80 years of maturity and acceptance, you can still see most of these features and know that your local track isn't anything like them.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  When we were debating how much featuring to put into the 12th hole at Pacific Dunes, and I was on the side of restraint, I had to point out to the others that we ALREADY had a hole with a bunker and a dead tree in the landing area (#2), a hole with alternate fairways (#3), a green ten feet from the clifftop (#4), a twenty-foot deep bunker (#6), a long par-4 with a bunch of moguls just short of the green (#7), a hole with alternate greens (#9), and back-to-back par-3's (#10 and 11). 

But I've never heard the golf course characterized in those terms by anyone else.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,

I think Mac wrote something to the effect that he expected criticism, and was surprised Cypress Point got so little. No shock value there - just awe.  I think President Bush summed it up pretty well before he stopped playing golf - shock and awe, baby!

[Pat Brockwell]

I think "awe" has a longer and deeper effect than "shock" and on that basis I prefer it.  Shock is more of a one time deal, but awe keeps on giving.

[Adam Clayman]

Agree with Awe, Pat. Aweful, literally!

Forrest, I'm sorry my post didn't meet your standard for excellence.
 It was my effort to be as honest as I can be with what little intelligence I have.

I found it weak that you were asking for some generic truism in what makes great inspiring golf. As I intimated in my answer it is not shock. It is and will continue to be the variety of core principles that elicits the awe I sensed you were asking about.

 Sure, people can be awed by the look an architect provides, but again, shock, as a description does not cut it for me.

Is CPC shocking? I'll admit the 16th could be described as such but does that one hole make the whole great? How about the cove on the 8th at Pebble? Each of those holes use nature's dramatic feature shaping. What at Merion is shocking? The quarry?

Of the best holes of yours that I've played it was not the shock but the challenge provided by the setting and terrain that made them quality holes. Change the word shock to the awe inspiring character of the land and I'd have agreed.

[Tim Gerrish]

How much of our needing to "shock or awe" people is a reflection of our society?  Take a fundamentally sound golf hole at put it into an interesting location and it is better. 

It seems awe comes from the site AND our creative design skills.

[Forrest Richardson]

Awe may be much better than "shock" — OK, "awe value."

Adam — That was a much better post! Now I know where you are coming from — and also that it is you, not some thief who stole your computer for a few hours. Since "inspiring golf" is your choice of words, what makes it then? We discuss all sorts of things here, and elsewhere (thankfully), but we rarely hone in on one easy-to-communicate character that sets apart holes and courses. Despite your claim, I am not sure it has to be a "generic trusim" — "awe" seems to do a good job. Is it "awe" in your mind?

And.....does your "awe" have some elements of "shock value," or is that out?

[Jeff_Brauer]

How much of our needing to "shock or awe" people is a reflection of our society?  Take a fundamentally sound golf hole at put it into an interesting location and it is better. 

It seems awe comes from the site AND our creative design skills.

Tim,

I have long figured that TV has made us more visual as a people, and do believe that new courses are under more pressure to be visually appealing.  That said, CP had to awe people back then, no doubt.  I think nature can awe about 50X over any manmade feature.  I wonder where a Trump waterfall would have fallen on the shock meter in the Golden Age?

[Adam Clayman]

Forrest, I don't know of any formula. The subtle nature found in some of Pete Dye's work may not inspire many on their initial inspection. But, after repeated play, those subtle nuances seem to stand the test of time better than his shock attempts.

One aspect that has not been mentioned in a long time on this site is how an occasional breaking of the design rules, works. But, only selectively.

For me, inspiring golf tugs at the core of my being. Not easily quantified, but one theory is that when the hand of man is too obvious, too many times, it is not as inspiring as either the natural or the attempt to tie in to the natural.

Hope that furthers the discussion.

And no, the shock is rarely viewed as inspiring. I'd cite Wolf Creek in Mesquite as a course that shocks. It may inspire some but to me it's just aweful.  

  

Golf architecture, if it is to have a lasting appeal, must do justice to all players, and this it can do only when hazards are used in the strategic form. Art is freedom, therefore art is the only means by which we can insure a feeling of freedom to the golfer. Diminish freedom by discipline, and the joy in accomplishment depreciates; but as golf has no other justification for existence than to heighten the joy of living, to diminish this is to defeat the purpose of golf.  MAX BEHR

[Joe Hancock]

I heard a new technical term the other day. WFC.

Welcome to the club. You'll know you're really in when you learn about IBG........

 

Joe

[Ronald Montesano]

The architect who never fails to shock me is Roger Rulewich.  He did it at Saratoga National and at Fox Hopyard.  His courses from the tips are always astonishing, especially given the angles he provides and the carries he expects.  Since he trained at the hands of the expert, RTJ, it comes as no surprise.  I accept the challenge of Rulewich courses, but don't necessarily relish playing them.

Another shocking course is the Kaluhyat 18 at Turning Stone, done by RTJ2.  It is the one of the three at the resort that cannot be used for their PGA Tour event, as gallery management is impossible.  Fazio's Atunyote 18 (the featured course at Turning Stone) has one hole (#5) that offers shock value...that's it.  I'd like to think that Chambers represents a change in the wind for Junior Jones.

Desmond Muirhead?  Metaphoric shock value?  I've played his River Oaks near Buffalo on numerous occasions and will be at Haystack in southern Vermont in August.

The architect whose shock value I thoroughly enjoyed was Mike Strantz at True Blue.  I didn't play Caledonia, but hope to get there, Tot Hill and Tobacco Road for a better picture of the man.

Is shock value the antithesis of the "breather hole" thread we've been carrying the last few days?  I imagine it is hard to weave just a bit of shock value into a design...it seems bewitching and part of a designer's personality.

[Forrest Richardson]

Gee, and I used to work in television....

When I use "shock," I am leaning toward differentiation and uniqueness. To me, great golf courses have these components.

For example, the fundamental thing wrong with a majority of "me-too" courses is that the golfer cannot/could not tell one hole from the next if shown a photo — or even if plopped down blindfolded in some spot he/she had just a played a few hours earlier. It's all the same, all too often.

Bunker after bunker, look after look and style after style is not enough, usually. This can be overcome with a dramatic (shocking) site, a few natural features or even a few man-made features...but, in general, the lame course (my view) is one that does not have the elements of surprise, differentiation and uniqueness.

By "uniqueness" I am using the word to describe this: That a course should have some elements that not only give each hole (or most holes) their own personality, but that the course as a whole is one we would not / could not find anywhere else. Certainly Pacific Dunes, Cypress Point, and others mentioned here do a great job at that — even when they are described as subtle, there is a shock (awe) that comes from the sum of parts.

In the case of Cypress Point, my position is that the course does have shock value — both in the dramatic site and the surprises that carry the golfer into the woods, beyond the inland dune, out back and over the dune, and — finally — along the sea. And, while doing so, Cypress manages to control itself. It does not whack you up side the head. It does't need to as the site does a decent job of that on its own.

[Rick Shefchik]

Forrest,

When I think of shock value at CPC, I immediately think of #9 -- not the stunning seaside holes. I expected those holes to wow me, and they did. But I was shocked by the audacity and uniqueness of #9, a driveable  par 4 with a tilted sliver of a green, all laid out in front of you and challenging you to get your mind around what the options and dangers are. That hole could exist at other courses (though the duneslike quality of the terrain is a huge part of the hole's character); yet I'd never seen anything like it, and wasn't expecting to encounter anything like it at CPC. No wonder Mackenzie was disappointed that CPC wasn't more controversial.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick,

If we are thinking CPC 9 has shock value, then I think a only a hole can shock, not a whole course.  After a few holes of unusual features, wouldn't shock turn to "Oh, not again" disgust or acceptance that this is just the style?  Strantz certainly tried to incorporate one hole after another with shock value, as doesn Mike DeVries at Kingsley.

Again, a Mac (or is it Tillie?) quote comes to mind - something along the lines of the "puny strivings of man pale against nature."

[Rick Shefchik]

Jeff,

I agree that an individual hole or holes probably can't create the overall aura of shock that Forrest is suggesting with this thread.

The ideal would be somewhere between a string of quirky, unusual or even bizarre holes and a layout with little or no surprises -- the "can't tell one hole from another" course Forrest describes. But if Cypress fits the ideal -- and I think it does -- there are going to be individual holes that stick in your memory, holes that create what we're calling shock value. For me at CPC, it had to be more than just the ocean. I was already shocked before we got to 15.

#9 might be justly described as "puny strivings of man" compared to the cliffs of !5, 16 and 17, but as puny strivings go, it certainly shocked me.

[Forrest Richardson]

At Cypress Point, isn't the combination of No. 8 — then No. 9, the real "shock" at that part of the round? The two holes in combination are what makes that piece of the puzzle there unique.

At Tobacco Road, the charm is that Mike chose to throw so much at us, and with very few breathers. That, in and of itself, is quite unique over and above the unique site and shaping.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()