[Peter Pallotta]

Chip -
From what I've read, no one does boring better than C and C.
We often talk about a fine golf course slowly revealing itself over time, but for that to happen, architects need to risk having their work deemed boring (a tough ask) and golfers need to embrace a home course with the loyalty of a bygone era (for most, an equally tough ask). To some, the call for restraint has already gotten old and cliched; for me, it can't be repeated often enough.

Peter

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

Obviously there's a huge difference in "look" between the way Mackenzie (and the American Construction Company) had those bunkers at CPC and the way they became and are now (even after a fairly recent bunker project). If you want to see how different that look really was just check out Geoff Shackelford's book on Cypress Point and all the hole by hole photos just after the course opened.

Why were they changed and allowed to evolve from the way they originally looked (highly natural and tying in beautifully between what was natural sand area and what was constructed)?

That's a very good question and if you ask me it probably had a lot to do with the fact it was so hard to maintain that sand area they way it originally was. Take a look at the old original photos just after the course opened and you should understand what I mean.

Pebble Beach had essentially the same thing happen to its original (1929) truly amazing so-called "Artificial Sand Dunes bunkering."

[Michael Dugger]

Chip:

If the natural character of the site was THAT good then the need for additional lipstick / make-up to supposedly enhance the course would not be needed.

The key for me would be whether the course really is able to differentiate between different levels of shotmaking. If the course did not really break down the excellent from the good to the so-so to the marginal and to the worst of plays -- then it could be easily seen as too simple, or even worse, rather limited in terms of what it does do.

A great site is no less than 60% of the total equation for me. Start with a great site and you don't need the so-called "extras" to make for a grand time when playing.

Be very much interested if you could name the course at some point on this thread.

I'm guessing it wasn't Tetherow.

Interesting comments here........

[Don_Mahaffey]

Here is a thread from a while back where I share my ideas about a particular hole and the simplicity that, IMO, makes it a very good hole. The photos are from grow in so they are rough, but Mike's posted a few of the finished product, which I added at the bottom.



quote author=Mike Nuzzo link=topic=32421.msg639702#msg639702 date=1197478134]
Thanks fellas.
I didn't expect that some were going to suggest what to do -- but I'm very they glad.

Here is the as-built sketch followed by Don's thoughts on the hole:


One of my favorite holes on our golf course is the 6th hole.  I love this hole because it is so subtle and so simple -- and because it required very little work -- I already had enough work to do!  It is a par 3 that can play from 210 to 135 yards.  It plays almost due south. The prevailing wind is from the south east and is into the player at about the 10 o’clock angle.

By far the hardest part about building this hole was having the courage to just leave it alone. We debated this a lot as the original plan called for a couple of bunkers to be added and shaped. But as we cleared the few trees and light brush in the area it became even more obvious that very little work was required for this to be a fine golf hole. The hole has a creek hazard running up the entire left side and behind the left portion of the green. Since the lay of the land is sloping right to left, the creek is very much in play and additional hazards were not needed. The green slopes hard to the left and the back half falls away to the creek behind.


Present view (sep '07) from the forward tees on the green side of the creek.
The hole from the other side looks better -- I'm saving those.

The green is highlighted by a number of small crevasse-like drainage cuts that were natural to the area and surface drain the green. Some small ridges were added to the right portion of the green to allow the player to “kick” the ball toward a left pin, and to complicate the chip for the player who bails out to the safer right side of the hole.

Mike has his own modern architectural dislikes, and I don’t have the patience to come up with 10 at this time, but chief among mine is the fact that I believe most architects would have felt the need to “spruce up” this hole, if only so it photographed better. Or they feel the need to “copy” holes that were built over a century ago by architects who worked with the ground they were given. If we need to copy anything from the past, we should be looking at the processes they used to create great holes with the land they had to work with. Our 6th hole represents the type of architecture that I love, and find lacking in most modern work; simple, subtle, yet very challenging. I’m very proud of the work (or lack of) we did to create this hole.
Don Mahaffey


The Green up close this Sept ('07) after sprigging.
Cheers
[/quote]
from Aug '08.

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble:

Obviously there's a huge difference in "look" between the way Mackenzie (and the American Construction Company) had those bunkers at CPC and the way they became and are now (even after a fairly recent bunker project). If you want to see how different that look really was just check out Geoff Shackelford's book on Cypress Point and all the hole by hole photos just after the course opened.

Why were they changed and allowed to evolve from the way they originally looked (highly natural and tying in beautifully between what was natural sand area and what was constructed)?

That's a very good question and if you ask me it probably had a lot to do with the fact it was so hard to maintain that sand area they way it originally was. Take a look at the old original photos just after the course opened and you should understand what I mean.

Pebble Beach had essentially the same thing happen to its original (1929) truly amazing so-called "Artificial Sand Dunes bunkering."

Lou

I was wondering when someone would get their back up about using the iceplant! Tee hee!  Its a good thing archies weren't afraid to use heather (plays an awful lot like iceplant) as part of heathland designs.

Tom

If you only knew how many times I have pawed over that book and wondered what the heck happened.  Perhaps it was inevitable because many of Dr Mac's have been altered over the years, but to be fair, some of those bunkers when built were not anything close to tie ins - it was Dr Mac getting his flair on!  In fact, many naturalizing bunkers from many archies have been formalized over the years and my guess is that maintenance issues is the main culprit.  However, this does get back to simplicity and knowing where to draw the line. 

Ciao

[Lyne Morrison]

Chip, my feeling is that ‘too simple’ is when the course does not hold the interest of the player.

When I read this thread my mind immediately returned to two courses that I played as a young junior and found completely uninspiring. I still recall thinking about why that was and what could have been done to make the holes more interesting.

I think that one of the great things about good golf courses is that they not only engage the senses but ask you to respond to a series of personal challenges. For me – if that is missing it is perhaps ‘too simple’.

Having said that, I do value the capacity for restraint in design as much as action.

Cheers -- L

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

I don't think it's very hard to tell if one has ever been involved on a green commitee or with the maintenance of bunkering (and sand stability) that the way most ALL the man-made sand bunkering on that course by Mackenzie (and the amazing American Construction Company) was initially in those amazing photos that it surely was a real maintenance nightmare.

I mean just look at how remarkably low profile most of that bunkering was to such things as green surfaces. In some cases we're not talking about more than about an inch stepup. Can you imagine how that stuff could blow around and right onto greens and such (even if I don't have much idea what the consistency of it was bit nevertheless)?

Take a look at the way the bunkering around the little short par 3 at Pebble once was----eg it looked like the sand was actually flush with the green surface (no stepup at all). That too did not last very long and probably for the same maintenance nightmare reasons.

I once asked Doak what he thought about that and whether or not Mackenzie actually realized how difficult that kind of thing might be to maintain. Tom said he thought Mackenzie probably did realize it but being Mackenzie he probably just told them if HE build it that way then it would just bloody well be up to the maintenance dept. to figure out how to maintain it the way he built it! 

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble:

I don't think it's very hard to tell if one has ever been involved on a green commitee or with the maintenance of bunkering (and sand stability) that the way most ALL the man-made sand bunkering on that course by Mackenzie (and the amazing American Construction Company) was initially in those amazing photos that it surely was a real maintenance nightmare.

I mean just look at how remarkably low profile most of that bunkering was to such things as green surfaces. In some cases we're not talking about more than about an inch stepup. Can you imagine how that stuff could blow around and right onto greens and such (even if I don't have much idea what the consistency of it was bit nevertheless)?

Take a look at the way the bunkering around the little short par 3 at Pebble once was----eg it looked like the sand was actually flush with the green surface (no stepup at all). That too did not last very long and probably for the same maintenance nightmare reasons.

I once asked Doak what he thought about that and whether or not Mackenzie actually realized how difficult that kind of thing might be to maintain. Tom said he thought Mackenzie probably did realize it but being Mackenzie he probably just told them if HE build it that way then it would just bloody well be up to the maintenance dept. to figure out how to maintain it the way he built it! 

In the past several days I have been looking at THAT book again.  One thing I did notice is that the bunkers on #s 11 & 14 in which the chap is playing from looks to be very, very firm.  Though others like 4th & 5th look quite sandy.  And you are right, some bunkers look as though they are spilling onto the greens (barely any lips to some bunkers) already - and I don't expect the course has even officially opened or if it has, just.  Dr Mac may have said maintian as I designed it, but we all know humans are like water, they follow the path of least resistance.  Is it not part of an archie's job to try and head maintenance nightmares off at the pass?  Thinking of it, and by reading what the archies write on this board, this may be one of the things which has changed (at least for many archies) in recent years as compared to the golden age. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - that's an excellent example. For those of who don't know, that's a picture from the Grand Island Golf Course, which no longer exists.  It was a modest course that nonetheless served its clientele very well for many decades. And it's the kind of golf course (and specifically, the kind of golf hole) that I took too much for granted much too often. I've mentioned this before, but one of the unexpected benefits to my being on this site is that it has helped me see the wonderful bits of architecture that exist on modest little courses all over the place, simple expressions that I'd long overlooked.

Peter   

[Anthony Gray]

   Chip,


  Your question brings up the playability issue. If you can finish the round refreshed then I deem the architect successful. Too simple is subjective.


      Anthony

[Mark Bourgeois]

Is the poster child for simple not simplistic the Sacred Nine?  What about Doak's "Sleeping Beauty" awards?

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,


I think you will find that manicuring happened to the bunkering in your photo. Although, as mentioned, vegetation is/was probably needed for stability, the manicured mowing of it probably wasn't. It would not suprise me if it now had its own irrigation to keep it green

[Chip Gaskins]

just to be clear.  i personally didn't think AGC was too simple, i just thought it would be a great question for the board on where that line was.

AGC was fantastic, i played it at time when the native was cut down and the fairways were dormant making the "texture" (to use a term from another thread) on the lesser side, but i still saw all the strategic elements of the fairway bunkers and the nuances on the fantastic green complexes.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Chip:

Simple can be too simple for some people ... but they're probably simpletons.

Restraint is what's been missing from a lot of modern golf architecture, and lack of restraint is what holds a lot of architects back from doing something really great.  They are trying too hard, and they can't conceal it.

Tom,

I agree wholeheartedly.

Conversely though, I've also seen a few situations where I think contemporary "minimalist architects" used too much restraint. In other words, a cut-and-fill and some grading work could have improved a hole where the native terrain was basically left untouched.

As you point out, the magic is in effectively concealing such work... and, of course, erring on the side of restraint   

[David Stamm]

I think an excellent example of a great hole in the context of simple is the 12 at Rustic Canyon. Some like it, some don't, but it looks so absurdly easy off the tee it gives the player a false sense of security. The green is the holes main (and one could say only) defense and it's diabolical. The restraint used when designing this hole is extraordinary.

[Peter Ferlicca]

A course that will play simple is one that you step up to every tee and feel as if a driving range is in front of you.  Even if the approach shots into greens seem tough, the player will think he is doing well by safely putting into play off the tee.  How you hit your shots off the tee really determines how you play overall.  Unless if your tiger who can spray it everywhere and still makes birdies on a consistent basis. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()