Are dramatic architectural features doomed

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

because they're so visible and because they present more pronounced pass/fail situations to the average golfer, and once on his radar screen for promoting bad breaks, (fail) the erosive process of complaining ultimately results in the deminishment or eradication of the feature ?

What are some examples of dramatic features that NLE.

The 12th green at GCGC ?

[Mark Dorman]

I think that this is somewhat related to the "With new grasses, why don't we see" thread.

Some people don't like the dramatic features. Others do.

Courses get a reputation for these types of things. People that like them will play, recommend, and return.  People that don't will do the opposite.

Some architects will continue to incorporate these dramatic features into their courses, and those who can understand the architectural merit will...understand.  Other architects will continue with their prefab, cookie cutter, template golf courses built in popular vacation spots.

[Anthony Gray]

 The one that comes to mind is the island green at Sawgrass. It does bring great attention to the course. I think it is fair to say that the course gets more play because of this green. I think dramatic features have a place in golf even if manmade. People don't travel and pay for dull.


  Anthony

[Jeff Goldman]

Patrick,

Do you think these features are in more danger now than they used to be?  Wasn't GCGC 12 killed a while ago?  It seems to me that there is less of this going on now than there used to be, and there may be more emphasis on preserving (or restoring) such things, possibly because of the influence of golf architects, writers, etc.  Can you give a few examples of dramatic features that have been disposed of recently?

Jeff

[BCrosby]

Examples?

They are everywhere. To pick a course people know, many dramatic features at ANGC have been toned down or eliminated. Presumably in the name of that favorite solecism called "fairness".

To name a few -

- wild greens at 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 18.
- blind drive and blind c/l bunker at 11.
- waste-type bunker right of 14 LZ
- Valley of Sin on 7

And those are just the ones that jump from the old photos.

ANGC is by no means alone. Why the popular urge to eliminate dramatic features is a fascinating historical question.

Bob

[Anthony Gray]

  I am very curious to see if some of the "drama" will be taken out of the Castle Course. Bob thanks for your reply, I did not know that the greens at ANGC had been altered that much. Is it because the greens are faster now?

  Anthony

 

[Eric Smith]

Though not often encountered in my 30+ years of playing golf, I always love coming up on the blind hole/approach;  thinking of #5 at Dye's Long Cove or #2 at Doak's Heathland just to name a couple.

Those holes have manufactured mounding between the fairway and the greensite allowing for some hit and hope type wedge shots that to me are always fun to play.  Many golfers I imagine would disagree, but here in the treehouse they are a warm fuzzy blanket to most and it's my hope that more of these type features will be built in the future.

For more on this type architectural feature I recommend following this link to Richard Mandell's excellent site:

http://www.golf-architecture.com/byrmga.php?id=2

Here's a blurb: As technology changed, so did golf course design, and the blind shot was virtually eliminated from modern courses. But Dye was not ready to sacrifice compelling design characteristics because some golfers believe blind shots are dangerous or unfair. Dye originally agreed that blind holes didn't belong in golf, until he met Tommy Armour. When Dye told the Silver Scot his feelings, Armour responded bluntly, "That shows how much you know about the game of golf"

I love it.

In my two examples one is at a private club and the other is at a public.  It would be interesting to see how these holes are generally received by those that play them - probably with their fair share of complaints.  As long as they're used as an infrequent design feature and/or included for varietal purposes, then their existence will hopefully be long lived.

I've read that the Dell hole at Lahinch is often credited as the genesis of this type feature, so it's made it this far...

[Carl Rogers]

wide or narrow neckties...nothing is really new or old ... fashionism
they may be temporarily not in vogue, but they shall return ...
Donald Trump and Louis XIV have a lot in common.

A couple of generations from now the dramatic gestures of today will be looked at a new and the smart people will learn or discover their strengths and limitations.  I think this is true in all design fields.

[mike_beene]

Wonder if we lost Mae West at Bel-Air for similar reasons?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

Do you think these features are in more danger now than they used to be?

I think it's a been a trend that probably reached its peak when legalese entered the fray.

As Tom Doak stated, golfers tend to remember the bad bounces more than the good ones.  Good ones help scoring, bad ones ruin rounds.

The more dramatic the feature, the more extreme the result.

Wasn't GCGC 12 killed a while ago? 


In the 60's. but, there was far more to the eradication of the 12th than the extreme features, although, they did figure in their demise.

It seems to me that there is less of this going on now than there used to be, and there may be more emphasis on preserving (or restoring) such things, possibly because of the influence of golf architects, writers, etc. 


I don't think dramatic features are being restored as frequently as moderate or benign features.
I can't recall any dramatic features that have been restored to their original form.  Often, a modified version is restored.  But, then again, I'm not privy to the details on the broad spectrum of dramatic features.

Can you cite a "dramatic" feature that's been restored to its original form ?
Off the top of my head I can't think of any.

Can you give a few examples of dramatic features that have been disposed of recently?

Yes, the 13th green at Preakness Hills.
A wonderful two tiered green with about a 2-3 foot differential between the tiers.   In addition, there's been talk of flattening a wonderful undulating fairway AND, resloping a great green that runs away from the golfer.  And, those are just at one club.

[Jeff Goldman]

Patrick,

Were these recent flattenings done to help the "average" golfer, or because green speeds demanded by good as well as average golfers made the greens unplayable?

As you have, I've been in meetings with memberships about renovations, and what I heard from  average and women golfers (as well as some better golfers), is fear that the course will be made EASIER, not harder, either by tree work, shortening the course from forward tees, etc.  I believe that Tom Doak has said that he often hears from clients the same fear -- that his work will make their course too easy.

Also, I don't see many modern architects building courses without striking features. Do Coore/Crenshaw, Smyers, Nicklaus, Doak, etc. etc. build unremarkable, unchallenging courses?  And I also recall Pete Dye's view that golfers remember the one "heroic" shot they made more than all the misses, and that's what they go to his courses for.

As to renovations, in Chicago Ron Prichard and other architects have restored bunkering to more original configurations after time and other things turned the bunkers on these courses into featureless sand circles with no lips.  Not anymore.  At Beverly, Skokie, Olympia Fields, and others the bunkers are now real hazards, which require decisionmaking and exact penalties for wrong choices or execution.   

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

My "too easy" comment was in reference to suggestions to widen fairways back to their original widths, remove trees, or return a hole to a shorter original length.  Club committees freak out at such suggestions.

At the same time, there is always someone on the committee who thinks such-and-such hole or green should be made "fairer".

But, I agree with you that plenty of dramatic architectural features have been built in the last 10-20 years.  I just hope someone is around to defend them over the next 50 years.

[Rob Rigg]

If you go back and read any of the Tetherow threads it is apparent that dramatic architectural feature ARE doomed.

There was a split camp on the site after the heated dialogues about the "mohawks" or "eyebrows".

Apparently, there was no such debate amongst the golfing masses because after one season, the "mohawks" are apparently getting a haircut.

It is likely that the Castle Course shut down early and will not open until April for the same reason.

I am saddened by this turn of events because a) I thought they were interesting and b) it just goes to show how impatient we are with something that deviates from the norm.

If this had always been the case, we never would have had golf to begin with - a bunch of guys hitting a rock across a field into a hole, how stupid . . .

[Jon Wiggett]

  I am very curious to see if some of the "drama" will be taken out of the Castle Course. Bob thanks for your reply, I did not know that the greens at ANGC had been altered that much. Is it because the greens are faster now?

  Anthony

 

Anthony,

they are going to be doing some work on the Castle this winter. Reducing some of the green contours and removing a few of the mounds in the fairway. I have a list that I picked up in St.A last week, I will see if I can find it,

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

Were these recent flattenings done to help the "average" golfer, or because green speeds demanded by good as well as average golfers made the greens unplayable?

It was to help the average to poor golfer.
The good golfer "thought out" the hole out better, executed better and recovered better.

Increased green speeds certainly played a role, but, two other double tier greens remain intact.

The "unfair" monster reared its ugly head because the green was sharply elevated.  This cause short balls to be faced with a seemingly difficult recovery, when in reality, the recovery was fairly easy.  The perception was to go long, when in fact, that cause more problems than going short.

As you have, I've been in meetings with memberships about renovations, and what I heard from  average and women golfers (as well as some better golfers), is fear that the course will be made EASIER, not harder, either by tree work, shortening the course from forward tees, etc.  I believe that Tom Doak has said that he often hears from clients the same fear -- that his work will make their course too easy.

This was just the opposite, it made the hole much, much easier.
It also removed the unique character from the hole.

Also, I don't see many modern architects building courses without striking features. Do Coore/Crenshaw, Smyers, Nicklaus, Doak, etc. etc. build unremarkable, unchallenging courses? 

"Challenging" is often a function of length more than anything else.

"Unremarkable" is too vague a term.
"Dramatic" features may not be easily defined, but, you know them when you see them.

One of the things I liked about the 17th at Pacific Dunes and the 4th at Hidden Creek is how you benignly transition from the previous hole by walking to the next tee, where you're suddenly presented with quite a dramatic view reflecting a unique/dramatic hole.

And I also recall Pete Dye's view that golfers remember the one "heroic" shot they made more than all the misses, and that's what they go to his courses for.

You have to distinguish between the pleasure of a random shot, occuring anywhere on the golf course, with a repetitive result caused by a pronounced, fixed feature.

Erosion is a powerful force, in nature, marriage and golf.

The repetitive "bad break" which is remembered far more than the good break, soon becomes the lightening rod for change.

Since the "collective" of golfers at a club have probably experienced similar results when interfacing with that feature, it's on the radar screen as an objectionable feature and prone to be altered/disfigured/removed.

As to renovations, in Chicago Ron Prichard and other architects have restored bunkering to more original configurations after time and other things turned the bunkers on these courses into featureless sand circles with no lips.  Not anymore.  At Beverly, Skokie, Olympia Fields, and others the bunkers are now real hazards, which require decisionmaking and exact penalties for wrong choices or execution.   

A bunker is hardly a dramatic feature, unless it has some very unique qualities, usually depth.

Golfers understand that bunkers are an integral part of a golf course, not an alien feature, so they're generally accepted, despite some eccentricities.

[David Stamm]

Wonder if we lost Mae West at Bel-Air for similar reasons?

This came to mind for me as well. Alot of what Thomas and Bell did at various clubs qualifies. The mound on 14 at Ojai that Hunter described as a work of art is one. Naccarato can give more details to this, but I'm pretty sure Lakeside is a case study for this.

[Adam Clayman]

The complaining is what I find fascinating, but even more so, that anyone with any Golf acumen would listen to.

The average golfer's complaints should be heeded only slightly less than complaints from good golfers.

[John Moore II]

I think that dramatic features are in on way doomed going forward. Just look at courses like Tobacco Road and the other Strantz courses that get a great deal of praise. Those are plenty dramatic. I think those courses exist and especially so on the private side of the business. Now for the purely public courses which are more concerned with pace of play and volume of rounds, dramatic features may go away to a certain degree. But I think there will always be a place for dramatic architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I wonder if a dramatic architectural feature is more likely doomed if it appears to be significant departures from the rest of the course, and/or from the site's natural topography. What I mean is, if the land and/or architect hasn't "prepared" a golfer to encounter a dramatic feature when it appears, I think the golfer may then be more likely to blame that feature on the architect (thus leading more easily to its eventual demise -- since what man has made can also be unmade). To put it yet another way, I'm suggesting that it might be less likely that a golfer will blame the feature if that feature appears to him to be natural and the work of nature rather than the work of an architect. ("Appears" is the operative word - it wouldn't matter much if the feature was in fact naturally-occuring or not).  And one way to make it appear more natural is for the architect to "lead up to" a dramatic feature, e.g. by having, say, mounds and contours that get steadily larger and more dramatic on the holes leading up to the golf hole with the most dramatic feature of all

Peter 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick - I wonder if dramatic architectural features are more likely doomed if they appear to be significant departures from the rest of the course, and/or from the site's natural topography.

That's a valid point, however, the word dramatic inherently connotes a departure from the surroundings.

A feature that comes to mind is a mound just short of a green.
A mound that will deflect balls away from the green, despite the fact that the golfer's ball is on line with the target green.

The tactical impact of that little mound is enormous, yet, its shelf life may be limited because of all the almost guaranteed, bad bounces it produces.

I can't see it being out of sorts with the rest of the course or the natural topography, but, I can see it being out of favor with the membership

What I mean is, if the land and/or architect hasn't "prepared" a golfer to encounter a dramatic feature when it appears, I think the golfer may then be more likely to blame that feature on the architect (thus leading more easily to its eventual demise -- since what man has made can also be unmade). To put it yet another way, I'm suggesting that it might be less likely that a golfer will blame the feature if that feature appears to him to be natural and the work of nature rather than the work of an architect.


I don't disagree, but, most golfers can't identify whether the author is the land or the architect.  But, once they find out it was an additive, I think that increases its chances of being altered or eliminated.

("Appears" is the operative word - it wouldn't matter much if the feature was in fact naturally-occuring or not).  And one way to make it appear more natural is for the architect to "lead up to" a dramatic feature, e.g. by having, say, mounds and contours that get steadily larger and more dramatic on the holes leading up to the golf hole with the most dramatic feature of all


But, doing so diminishes the dramatic nature of the feature, so you have this ongoing dilema.

Tangentially related to this issue is the 3rd green complex at Seminole.
If your ball rolls off the left side of the green, a very high score on the hole is almost guaranteed.  Since Seminole is not run through consensus management, the 3rd green surrounds remain untouched, however, at almost any other club the left side of that green or the green itself would have been altered.

Those familiar with # 3 at Seminole understand the relationship to the green, the surrounds and the dramatic results of a ball rolling off the left side of that green.

[JMEvensky]

I think that dramatic features are in on way doomed going forward. Just look at courses like Tobacco Road and the other Strantz courses that get a great deal of praise. Those are plenty dramatic. I think those courses exist and especially so on the private side of the business. Now for the purely public courses which are more concerned with pace of play and volume of rounds, dramatic features may go away to a certain degree. But I think there will always be a place for dramatic architecture.

I agree.I think what's likely to happen is that the middle of the road course(a few added on dramatic flourishes) will vanish.

The lower end of the scale will get less dramatic features if they add unappreciated/unrecoverable cost.The higher end might go for more dramatic features as a way to distinguish itself.

[Sean_A]

Patrick

If a place like Cruden Bay can under the knife, then anything is possible.  I don't think dramatic features are likely in any more danger of being doomed than simple, yet effective features.  The whole world turns toward the mediocre in all facets of life.  To retain anything worthwhile keeping on either end of the spectrum requires an almost cult like attitude on the part of a few well placed folks.   

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Sean,

Don't you think that dramatic features appear on the golfer's radar screen sooner ?   And, as larger blips ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

With regard to mounds in front of greens, I believe that little knob in front of the fourth green at St. Andrews has been there for a very long time.

[Rob Rigg]

But Tom,

What about "new" courses that have not had a chance to stand the test of time?

If Tetherow and the Castle Course are going under the knife after one year, what does that say about the public's reactionary tendencies?

I am sure there are numerous courses that have not been so quick to make changes, but I still believe it is disconcerting.

I reread an old thread on Garden City that was very interesting - re: the 12th Green (pretty sure - it is the par 3 that got RTJ'd) - by making a change in the 60s (or whenever it was) the course has been altered permanently for the worse and it will probably be impossible to bring the "quirk" back because it was so edgy.

I do not think that it is a good thing for those who love GCA - although we are the minority - because these dramatic features provide thoughtful discussion and analysis which probably stirs creative ideas that modern GCAs can implement at their discretion.