Does it really matter, to the game of golf ? The architecture that is.

[Adrian_Stiff]

It matters to some people and to others it does not. We will just argue about the percentages and to some it is very important aka this site and to many (most) (majority) they want a reasonable course with sufficient challenge with a putting surface where the ball goes where the putt it, they want sand in the bunkers, they want everything reasonably mown.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lyne,

I believe that Behr and I are in harmony.

Ask yourself, what is "architecture ?"  And, what is architecture in its purest form ?

BCrosby,

I think you might have missed a critical point or two in my opening post.

Peter,

You too have missed the critical point.

Collectively, you all seem to view architecture in the context of additives as opposed to its purest form.

If a feature isn't functional, is its purpose solely visual/mental ?

Is the quality of the playing experience in direct proportion the absence of non-functional eye candy ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

With the aid of modern technology, the driving ability of the professional golfers from the Tee is starting to force redesign or at the very least modifications to the courses. This is not a criticism of the golfer or the equipment industry, nor is a go at the architects, but I feel the responsibility is totally with the course/club and the governing bodies (for not assisting the clubs with these types of problems).

If golfers can drive a Par 4 then IMO there is a design defect, which needs to be addressed and fast. I would suggest that the club has not kept abreast of players abilities and in short rendering their course nearly unplayable.  This is one of those cases when there is just no challenge and getting the ball into the hole has lost its excitement. Golf is more than just getting the ball down in the least number of strokes.

Architecture in all cases is most important, the quality and playability of the course is at stake and it is paramount that something is done to keep attracting the golfer.

IMHO Architecture is very important even on a natural site.

Melvyn

[Kirk Gill]

Patrick, exactly what do you mean by "functional?" Let's say you have a bunker 100 yards from the tee on a long par 4. You'll hit well over it every time. Pure eye candy for you. But a lesser player might be scared crapless by that bunker, and duff a shot into it on a regular basis. If it's in the field of play, most hazards and architectural features will have to be dealt with by one golfer or another - if not by actually hitting off of or out of it then by mentally having to overcome the mere existence of it. I'm thrown by the notion that an architectural feature isn't functional if it's purpose is visual/mental - particularly MENTAL. Isn't the mind one of the most important aspects of a golfer's game? Isn't that something that an architect WANTS to test? You act as if golf is a robotic game that deals only with the ability to execute a shot. Perhaps fear or excitement never enters into the game for you. If so, thent that's fine......for you. Others of us might have to control our minds when faced with a challenge that to your game is irrelevant.

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick, I reread the original post and you're right, most/all of us didn't understand the question(s).

Everyone please REREAD the original post. It may help to read just the part below "...icing on the cake", and then reread the whole thing.

[Richard Choi]

I stand corrected...

Pat, your general verbosity hurt your post here (or my severe attention deficit disorder).

I am not sure if I still agree though. I may argue that because of the focus on MACRO architecture over MICRO architecture when golf courses moved from seaside to inland, you lost many finer strategic elements (undulation of land, influence of wind on the course, etc.) when they were translated to inland courses.

Isn't the new golden age of golf that we are enjoying today all about renaissance of the MICRO architecture?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, exactly what do you mean by "functional?"

Of or relating to a function.
Performing or able to perform a function.
Useful or intended to be useful.

Let's say you have a bunker 100 yards from the tee on a long par 4. You'll hit well over it every time. Pure eye candy for you. But a lesser player might be scared crapless by that bunker, and duff a shot into it on a regular basis. If it's in the field of play, most hazards and architectural features will have to be dealt with by one golfer or another

You've described/defined a functional bunker

if not by actually hitting off of or out of it then by mentally having to overcome the mere existence of it. I'm thrown by the notion that an architectural feature isn't functional if it's purpose is visual/mental - particularly MENTAL.

Would you say that the clubhouse, as viewed in the play of # 18 at BPB is functional ?

Just because a feature is visible doesn't make it functional.

And, a feature can be functional, but not visible at the moment of play.

Isn't the mind one of the most important aspects of a golfer's game?

Certainly.

Isn't that something that an architect WANTS to test?

Yes,  with features that are functional

You act as if golf is a robotic game that deals only with the ability to execute a shot.

Golf is a game that deals with the ability to plan and execute a shot/series of shots.

Perhaps fear or excitement never enters into the game for you.

Fear and excitement are a function of the presentation of the features.

If so, then that's fine......for you.

Others of us might have to control our minds when faced with a challenge that to your game is irrelevant.

You've missed the critical point/s.
Go back to the begining and reread my posts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I stand corrected...

Pat, your general verbosity hurt your post here (or my severe attention deficit disorder).

I think it may have been the latter.

I am not sure if I still agree though. I may argue that because of the focus on MACRO architecture over MICRO architecture when golf courses moved from seaside to inland, you lost many finer strategic elements (undulation of land, influence of wind on the course, etc.) when they were translated to inland courses.

Other than the wind, isn't that precisely what architects try to replicate ?

Sometimes going to extremes ?

Isn't the new golden age of golf that we are enjoying today all about renaissance of the MICRO architecture?

I don't think so, but, others may disagree.

Isn't THE critical issue the "laying" of those football fields onto the land in a manner that heightens the challenge while preserving the fun ?

Which is better, a course where the MICRO architecture overrides the MACRO architecture or a course where the MACRO architecture over rides the MICRO architecture ?

Can you name me five golf courses where the MICRO architecture overrides the MACRO architecture ?

Can you name me five courses where the individual features trump the land and the routing ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

With the aid of modern technology, the driving ability of the professional golfers from the Tee is starting to force redesign or at the very least modifications to the courses. This is not a criticism of the golfer or the equipment industry, nor is a go at the architects, but I feel the responsibility is totally with the course/club and the governing bodies (for not assisting the clubs with these types of problems).

Melvyn,

This has been a problem from the very begining.
The only difference is the quantum leap that's occured in recent years.
But, you can't view GCA in the sole context of the PGA Tour Golfer.  They're in a class by themselves.
Focus should be on club golfers and the better amateur golfer, not PGA Tour Pros who may never set foot on most golf courses.

If golfers can drive a Par 4 then IMO there is a design defect, which needs to be addressed and fast.

I don't agree with that and would offer holes # 1, 2, 14 and 17 at NGLA as proof that drivable par 4's have a valid existance on a golf course.

I would suggest that the club has not kept abreast of players abilities and in short rendering their course nearly unplayable.

If a club has the land available to accomodate elasticity they should consider it.
If they don't have the land available, the consideration of additional defenses is a reasonable alternative. 


This is one of those cases when there is just no challenge and getting the ball into the hole has lost its excitement.

Personally, I don't know of any courses that fall into that category.
Could you identify five of them ?

Golf is more than just getting the ball down in the least number of strokes.

Perhaps, but, the game of golf is holing the ball in as few strokes as possible

Architecture in all cases is most important, the quality and playability of the course is at stake and it is paramount that something is done to keep attracting the golfer.

It's the game that attracts the golfer.

If you put me on a golf course that you consider a dog track and have me play against Ran, Mike Sweeney and TE Paul, I will be competitive, have a great time, enjoy the company and revel in the spirit of competition.   While I may prefer the football fields layed upon the land in Mullen, NE, Southampton, NY or Juno Beach, Fl, the joy of the game, the competition and comraderie remains the same as on the dog track.


IMHO Architecture is very important even on a natural site.

What constitutes "architecture" on a natural site ?

[Kirk Gill]

Patrick, in my last post I was not responding to your initial post, but to this comment:

"If a feature isn't functional, is its purpose solely visual/mental ?"

This comment appears to create an opposition between a feature that is functional, and one that is visual/mental.

My point was that a feature that is "mental" is most certainly functional. Do you disagree?

One question regarding your initial post - what flat seaside sites are you referring to?

Also, in your last post, I like your question about what constitutes architecture on a natural site. I'm interested to hear what folks have to say about that one.

[Jason Topp]

Many Iowa rural 9 hole courses come close to your description of holes on football fields.  Look up Radcliffe Friendly Fairways or Five by Eighty for example.

I've played them both multiple times and had fun.    One would think the game would be easier with no hazards but it is not that much easier, particularly on the windy days that are normal on these courses.

Nonetheless, I would much rather play a good course and am willing to travel half way around the world to do so.  I was willing to shell out significant money to join a club primarily because of the golf course. 

[Charlie Goerges]

What constitutes "architecture" on a natural site ?

I have wondered from time to time about the use of the word "architecture" in relation to golf courses. I find myself shifting back and forth between calling it architecture and calling it Design. Perhaps the word architecture can't properly be used in referring to a site where all you do is stick a flag in the ground and mow a fairway and green, but the word design can. Of course the most important thing for either process is the same: making decisions.



Additionally I'd like to address your dog track example. I'm not saying I disagree with it, but I don't think it tells the whole truth. Yes we can have all the camaraderie and competition and fun on a dog track as on a great course. One doesn't need the great architecture to have golf. One also doesn't need a great many things that we tend to strive for and pursue and enjoy. Yet still we pursue them. I can't tell you why we do, but something must drive us to do so. (and it needn't only be materialistic things, so we can't blame this one purely on society or advertising) So Patrick, would you tell me why?

[DMoriarty]

What constitutes "architecture" on a natural site ?

I have wondered from time to time about the use of the word "architecture" in relation to golf courses. I find myself shifting back and forth between calling it architecture and calling it Design. Perhaps the word architecture can't properly be used in referring to a site where all you do is stick a flag in the ground and mow a fairway and green, but the word design can. Of course the most important thing for either process is the same: making decisions.

I have the same problem with the terms and prefer "Design."   As for what constitutes architecture or design or whatever you want to call it on a natural site, its where you stick the holes and the tees.  The routing.    If the site is truly satisfactory naturally, what else need be?

[Lyne Morrison]

Ask yourself, what is "architecture ?"  And, what is architecture in its purest form ?


Patrick,

You mention in an older thread, ‘There's an inherent pleasure that comes from planning and executing shots’. My feeling is that good architecture adds to this mix by providing heightened sensory awareness and greater player satisfaction.

And so what is golf architecture? For me it is a satisfactory balance of the required physical and mental challenges of the game coupled with the provision of a degree of pleasure and variety for all participants, while at the same time respecting the surrounding terrain. When these factors combine successfully my feeling is that architecture has the potential to feed or nourish the soul and to capture the ‘essence’ of the game.

In its ‘purist form’ course architecture might be seen as a gift from nature that brings forth a natural arrangement of the necessary spaces, conditions, detail and challenge required to successfully facilitate the game.   ‘Nature was gracious and kind when it spread before our forefathers that peculiar undulating ground known as linksland…especially designed as a playground for golf’. Behr

There are of course, golfers who are just out for a hit - and who no doubt think all of the above is nonsense – and I guess that’s ok too.

Cheers

[Niall C]

So what part of the interest in the GAME does architecture actually play ?

Is it over rated ?
Under rated ?

Is architecture MERELY the ICING ON THE CAKE ?

Would the best courses be those where the topography is the most interesting ?

Or would the best courses be those that are best sequenced over the topography ?

Or, would the best courses be those that are best sequenced and best layed out over the topography.

Let's say it's the latter, that those who can most creatively use the land to lay out and sequence their holes produce the best courses.

In the early stages of golf, isn't that what happened with an OUT and BACK configuration ?

Wasn't the real challenge, in creating a field of play, presented when golf moved off the flat sites next to the sea, to inland sites ?

Is it safe to say that the MACRO plot plan (architecture) is THE critical element in designing a golf course, with the MICRO portion being mostly window dressing ?

Your thoughts ? 

Patrick,

Excellent post. I've been thinking for a while about the early golf and what it must have been like. Considering there would have been next to no greenkeeping, no definition of the course in the way we would know it. By that I mean the greens, fairways and tees weren't defined on the ground (when was the term fairway first used to describe what we would now know as a fairway ?). Also my basic understanding of the rules back then (calling Tom Paul) was that the green, and indeed tee, moved with the positioning of the hole. Therefore the early courses such as TOC, Leith, Bruntsfield etc must have looked like one big playing field, very much like you descibe.
 
I think the challenge for these early guys came when greenkeeping improved and greens/tees etc became defined/fixed. Just a thought.

Macro v. Micro - very well put although don't know if you could call the micro window dressing when the placing of a bunker could dictate strategy. I think I do agree that getting the macro right is critical. Can you have a good course when the macro is wrong ?

Niall

[Mike Hendren]

If there were three (3) football fields layed length to length, with a tee at one end and a cup/hole at the other,  and four golfers were betting each other on who could take the fewest strokes, wouldn't the spirit of competition and the general challenge be sufficient to fuel everyone's interest ?

Patrick, down here those folks pitch horseshoes.  Move the stakes closer and the game doesn't really change.  It's all about execution.  I would notbother playing your hypothetical hole, but I suspect many would.

Bogey

[Mike Hendren]

On Patrick's wide open hole, there would be no fear of failure, hence no psychological challenge. 

Those rare individuals who master the art of consecutive free-throws in basketball are rarely legitimate hoopsters capable of being competitive in the sport.  They can merely repeat the same motion time and again and again and again.  That's not basketball, and the game described in Patrick's initial thread is not golf. 

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Additionally I'd like to address your dog track example. I'm not saying I disagree with it, but I don't think it tells the whole truth. Yes we can have all the camaraderie and competition and fun on a dog track as on a great course. One doesn't need the great architecture to have golf. One also doesn't need a great many things that we tend to strive for and pursue and enjoy. Yet still we pursue them. I can't tell you why we do, but something must drive us to do so. (and it needn't only be materialistic things, so we can't blame this one purely on society or advertising) So Patrick, would you tell me why?

Charlie,

I can't speak for others, but for me it's the aura and facets of the competition, primarily amongst friends.

I've had some great matches against Ran Morrissett, matches that I don't think either of us will soon forget, and none of those matches involved money.

It's about competing, pride, jousting, bragging rights, thinking soundly, hitting good shots/putts, bantering, the agony and ecstacy of the breaks for and against, friendship, comraderie, the stories that emerge that can be told along with some that can't be told.  So, it's a variety of attractions with the appeal being different for each golfer.  And, it's about the quest.

I don't think anyone dislikes the satisfaction of making a birdie, especially when all the shots were well planned and well executed.

That's the quest with the ultimate quest being all 18 holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ask yourself, what is "architecture ?"  And, what is architecture in its purest form ?


Patrick,

You mention in an older thread, ‘There's an inherent pleasure that comes from planning and executing shots’. My feeling is that good architecture adds to this mix by providing heightened sensory awareness and greater player satisfaction.

And so what is golf architecture? For me it is a satisfactory balance of the required physical and mental challenges of the game coupled with the provision of a degree of pleasure and variety for all participants, while at the same time respecting the surrounding terrain. When these factors combine successfully my feeling is that architecture has the potential to feed or nourish the soul and to capture the ‘essence’ of the game.

Is "architecture" the icing on the cake, or is it the "catalyst" ?

In its ‘purist form’ course architecture might be seen as a gift from nature that brings forth a natural arrangement of the necessary spaces, conditions, detail and challenge required to successfully facilitate the game.   ‘Nature was gracious and kind when it spread before our forefathers that peculiar undulating ground known as linksland…especially designed as a playground for golf’. Behr

But, if the game owed its very existance to "architecture" how do you explain its broad pupularity amongst those who play at courses deemed less than stellar ?  Surely, the lure isn't the "architecture".  Something else attracts golfers to the game.

From its rudimentary beginings on less than spectacular layouts, the game took root.

Eventually it moved away from ground naturally suited for golf to vastly different to hostile environments.

Yet, interest remained high.

Was it the architecture or the game ?

On ground naturally or ideally suited for golf, did the architect have to do much to create and prepare the field of play ?

Does an architect's task take on more significance on ground ill suited for golf ?

Where/when does the game need the hand of an architect  and where/when does that hand have to be heavy ?

There are of course, golfers who are just out for a hit - and who no doubt think all of the above is nonsense – and I guess that’s ok too.

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

If there were three (3) football fields layed length to length, with a tee at one end and a cup/hole at the other,  and four golfers were betting each other on who could take the fewest strokes, wouldn't the spirit of competition and the general challenge be sufficient to fuel everyone's interest ?

Patrick, down here those folks pitch horseshoes.  Move the stakes closer and the game doesn't really change.  It's all about execution.  I would notbother playing your hypothetical hole, but I suspect many would.

So, when I show up at the local watering hole with Ran, Tommy Naccarato, TEPaul, Mike Sweeney, Tiger Woods, Catherine Zeta Jones and you overhear us mentioning that we're going to go play a hole or two that's about 3 football fields in length, you'd have NO desire to join us ?

Especially if that watering hole was adjacent to the 18th at TOC and the hole/s we were talking about is/are just on the other side of the road.
Is that right ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

On Patrick's wide open hole, there would be no fear of failure, hence no psychological challenge. 

Oh really ?

Have you not seen the ReMax Long Driving contest ?

I thought that football fields had boundaries.
Maybe that's why the Vol's have had some problems.
That white chalk line counts for something

Those rare individuals who master the art of consecutive free-throws in basketball are rarely legitimate hoopsters capable of being competitive in the sport.  They can merely repeat the same motion time and again and again and again. Do you mean like Tiger and putts of 8 feet and in ? That's not basketball, and the game described in Patrick's initial thread is not golf. 

I see the problem, you're confusing free throws with basketball and then substituting basketball for football, but, you forgot that basketball courts and football fields have finite dimensions and should you go beyond those boundaries you cannot play either sport until you return to the designated field of play.

I'm not sure, but that sounds a little like golf to me.

How different are the 1st and 18th holes at TOC from 3 football fields layed upon the land ?

[Mike Hendren]

If there were three (3) football fields layed length to length, with a tee at one end and a cup/hole at the other,  and four golfers were betting each other on who could take the fewest strokes, wouldn't the spirit of competition and the general challenge be sufficient to fuel everyone's interest ?

Patrick, down here those folks pitch horseshoes.  Move the stakes closer and the game doesn't really change.  It's all about execution.  I would notbother playing your hypothetical hole, but I suspect many would.

So, when I show up at the local watering hole with Ran, Tommy Naccarato, TEPaul, Mike Sweeney, Tiger Woods, Catherine Zeta Jones and you overhear us mentioning that we're going to go play a hole or two that's about 3 football fields in length, you'd have NO desire to join us ?

Especially if that watering hole was adjacent to the 18th at TOC and the hole/s we were talking about is/are just on the other side of the road.
Is that right ?

Patrick,  why on earth would I want to play a goat ranch with that bunch when I could be across the street playing The Old Course?

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, when I show up at the local watering hole with Ran, Tommy Naccarato, TEPaul, Mike Sweeney, Tiger Woods, Catherine Zeta Jones and you overhear us mentioning that we're going to go play a hole or two that's about 3 football fields in length, you'd have NO desire to join us ?

Especially if that watering hole was adjacent to the 18th at TOC and the hole/s we were talking about is/are just on the other side of the road.
Is that right ?[/color]

Patrick,  why on earth would I want to play a goat ranch with that bunch when I could be across the street playing The Old Course?


# 10   There are some who consider TOC a goat ranch, absent the tradition and history.
# 9     You get to choose your foursome
# 8     CZJ wears very short skirts
# 7     TEPaul wears very short skirts
# 6     Mike Sweeney wears very long skirts
# 5     Tommy Naccarato will bring his surfboard and hang TEPaul after the round.
# 4     Ran Morrissett will grant you deity status on GCA.com
# 3     You'll get to play 18 sets of football fields
# 2     Tiger Woods will give you a personal playing lessons
# 1     I'll buy you and CZJ all you can drink after the round

[Lyne Morrison]

Ask yourself, what is "architecture ?"  And, what is architecture in its purest form ?


Patrick,

You mention in an older thread, ‘There's an inherent pleasure that comes from planning and executing shots’. My feeling is that good architecture adds to this mix by providing heightened sensory awareness and greater player satisfaction.

And so what is golf architecture? For me it is a satisfactory balance of the required physical and mental challenges of the game coupled with the provision of a degree of pleasure and variety for all participants, while at the same time respecting the surrounding terrain. When these factors combine successfully my feeling is that architecture has the potential to feed or nourish the soul and to capture the ‘essence’ of the game.

Is "architecture" the icing on the cake, or is it the "catalyst" ?
I would suggest this really depends on how one experiences the game. For some it is the catalyst – the overall experience is of importance; for others it may be the icing on the cake – an additional benefit if you like, that complements the camaraderie and challenge at hand. However for others it is likely that the architecture is of little significance - the environment inconsequential, having a hit and a little competitive revelry with a few mates is sufficient.

In its ‘purist form’ course architecture might be seen as a gift from nature that brings forth a natural arrangement of the necessary spaces, conditions, detail and challenge required to successfully facilitate the game.   ‘Nature was gracious and kind when it spread before our forefathers that peculiar undulating ground known as linksland…especially designed as a playground for golf’. Behr

But, if the game owed its very existance to "architecture" how do you explain its broad pupularity amongst those who play at courses deemed less than stellar ?  Surely, the lure isn't the "architecture".  Something else attracts golfers to the game.
Absolutely! - and David Forgan sums it up beautifully:

From its rudimentary beginings on less than spectacular layouts, the game took root.

Eventually it moved away from ground naturally suited for golf to vastly different to hostile environments.

Yet, interest remained high.

Was it the architecture or the game ?

Ah then …   I guess one would have to say that the game has sustained itself because it is a great game - an all encompassing game - one that gets into your blood. But at the same time there does remain a body of golfers who do appreciate fine architecture and the ‘total experience’ it delivers – and I suspect we are more than 1500.

On ground naturally or ideally suited for golf, did the architect have to do much to create and prepare the field of play ?
Not initially – but we are human – we tend to meddle.

Does an architect's task take on more significance on ground ill suited for golf ?
It becomes more of a challenge to capture the ‘essence’.

Where/when does the game need the hand of an architect 
In almost every case – to facilitate the game successfully, to provide a playing field that we choose to return to time and again. It would seem that even on your footy field option you outlined parameters.

and where/when does that hand have to be heavy ?
Surely, if the game is to endure in an appropriate manner, we are at a point in time where we should all endeavour to touch the land ‘lightly’ when creating a field of play.


Cheers

[Peter Pallotta]

Oh Lyne, - you know how much I appreciate your contributions here, but sweet mary in the name of all that is holy, please don't exchange mega-quoted-and-multi-coloured-posts with Patrick Mucci!  There is only madness there, and wailing, and the gnashing of teeth.  Please, come back to the Light.  (By the way, I like your choice of purple.)

Patrick - you mentioned earlier that I was missing the crucial point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, or you me. But I do think you are creating a false dichotomy, and confirming an artificial division that has long existed and that has been good neither for the game of golf nor for golf architecture in particular.

You asked Lyne:  "If the game owed its very existance to "architecture" how do you explain its broad pupularity amongst those who play at courses deemed less than stellar?"  I say, golf doesn't owe its existence to the architecture; it IS the architecture. There is NO GAME without the constructs (naturally occuring at first, increasingly conscious later) created when a field is deemed a field of play. That YOU think some of those fields of play "rudimentary" or "less than stellar" has nothing to do with it.  In fact, I'd argue that it is those architects past and present who recognize that architecture mostly takes care of itself who end up creating the most interesting and beautiful courses -- while those who are wedded to the dichotomy you describe end up spending too much money creating artificial-looking testaments to themselves.

What else has the 'rennaissance' in golf course architecture been but a return/homage to a time when golf courses didn't shout out loudly at you and hold up large signs that read "THIS is golf ARCHITECTURE! Turn right." 

Peter