Brian Silva on Classic Architecture

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

GCGC would be considered a course of penal design, which you may recall was exempted from the discussion.

However, the bunkers near the green are DEEP

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Isn't it true that the more penal the bunker the more weight it can play in the strategy of a hole? And isn't the opposite true the less penal a hazard the less importance it plays in the strategy or strategic interest of a hole? Kind of a paradox. Is there a specific formula we should be aware of when a bunker passes from being strategic to penal?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think the answer to your question would lie in the location of the bunker.

If we assume that a golfer is striving to hit the best shot possible, the proximity of the resultant shot to the bunker is going to heighten the strategic merit of the bunker, the depth of that bunker will certainly be a factor as well.

But, a bunker removed from the intended area of play, no matter what its depth will have little impact on the strategic merit of the hole or the bunker.

A strategically placed fairway bunker often creates a premium on driving accuracy.  A strategically placed fairway bunker, with considerable depth heightens that premium, and the fear factor.  

In non-penal courses in many cases, the length of the tee shot from the green determines bunker placement and bunker depth.  "Formulaic" or practical ?
 
Many people find the Devil's asshole bunker on the 10th at Pine Valley a non-entity because they never come close to hitting it into that bunker.  For others, that bunker is both strategic and penal.

With bunkers, as in Real Estate, location, location, location would seem to be paramount.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Aren't the greatest strategic tests a combination of the strategic and penal? Don't all the great strategic designs contain penal elements? Is it possible to have a non-penal strategic design?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

For me, I would agree that the greatest tests are a proper combination of strategic and penal design.

For others, I think it is a matter of degrees.

For some, every bunker is penal, for others bunkers offer no impediment to the shot at hand.  (Witness Tiger's incredible
6-iron from 218 yards over water to a tucked pin)

I think there has been a clear movement away from penal designs.  I think Pete Dye was controversial because he began a return to penal design.

If you look at the great number of golf courses created in the last twenty years, for resorts, or communities, who would design a penal course ?
On muni's, who would design a penal course ?
At for profit clubs, who would design a penal course ?

For me, for the most part, penal designs exist more in the classic courses than the modern courses.

I just can't imagine someone designing GCGC or PV for a resort, community, muni, or for profit use.  I can't imagine a course that I love, that combines penal and strategic better then most, NGLA, being put into the above use categories.

I think penal design is rare today.

Perhaps it will return, I doubt it, but, I hope so.

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

How about the Stadium course at PGA West or even TPC Stadium at Ponte Vedra?  Both are resort courses that everyone loves to play and get beat up for a day. There are a lot of masochist golfers out there (Tip O'Neil excluded).

[RJ_Daley]

First of all, I can't say enough how much I enjoyed the exchanges between KBM and Mike C earlier in the thread.  Elements that I felt were not discussed about the charm of the random bunker approach are how they help vary the field of play from day to day in the randomness of the advent of wind and the desirablility of a firm and fast fairway to stretch or shorten, widen or narrow the field of play as the conditions vary and dictate daily.  That is the charm of TOC, that is the charm of Wild Horse.  The bunkers are not random at WH insomuch as Dave and Dan went about willy-nilly digging here and there.  But they are anti-formulaic in that they are sometimes more like long distance top shot bunkers at 120-150yards mid fairway in some places, left and right at anywhere between 180 and 300yards and not on traditional left draw longer and right fade shorter.  They are random in that some fairways and greens have no bunkers, and some have cop bunkers and some sucking pits to one side or other at the bottom of well contoured greens.  Random in that manner is not formulaic, nor patterned, nor did they insult the lay of the land in forcing bunkers onto the land with randomness because the course is so naturally routed and laid on the terrain as they found it.  

But, the brilliance of TOC and WH is the randomness of their locations combined with wind and width that make some bunkers on some holes totally irrelevant one day and totally gruesome the next day, while other holes flip flop with those situations taking turns being the ones that are part of the strategy for the day.  

That kind of randomness and anti-formulaic siting might best be produced on these firm and fast natural grassland sandy prairies and links by allowing sheep or cattle to find their natural inclinations to low in what ever areas they prefer.  That is what causes blow-out bunkers that get incorporated in the sand hill courses and I guess what the randomness of TOC bunkers really was all about.  It is the quirky chaos of randomness in nature.  If it is man made, perhaps Mac was on the right track in his wry comment that if you want an enjoyable putting green of variety, have the village idiot go about the assignment of building a nice flat one.

So to recap; lay of the land is prime, wind and width and firm and fast are the varied elements that compliment randomness of bunkers, features, and routing.  Know the land well and place them whereever it seems naturally right to the land, not so much in accordance with conventional wisdom of strategic golf.  Trust the elements to allow them to be in and out of relevance as the conditions dictate.

[Bill Brightly]

Kelly's essay is so well written!

[Norbert P]

Bunkering in its primary form should be strategic.  A bunker “randomly” placed for strategic effect in fact is not random.  Functional bunkers if meant to be framing or saving bunkers are unfortunate features that indicate a flaw in the routing, or a difficult situation such as steep land.  Random bunkering probably lies at the bottom of the list in terms of importance to a golf course.   Random bunkering can obscure the landscape.   It is not obvious as to why it exists other than as an art piece, a cute and sentimental nod to the past.  The flow of the course should come more from how well it makes obvious the beauty of the land, rather than obscuring it with random bunkers.  The beauty of the land as displayed in the picture on this thread becomes subordinate to the architect and shaper’s need to present one more long, sandy bunker, not unlike thousands you can see anywhere else in the world.  The picture could practically be from anywhere, there is nothing to it that evokes the meaning of Cape Cod.  It seems more worthwhile to sit on the land seeking an original response from the land, to be more concerned with the natural features the land offers, rather than relying always on the conventional response by adding bunkers.  Bunkers are the typical response to challenging the golfer, but the unconventional approaches to challenging the golfer by using the land’s features, even by making manmade land features, may be more interesting, and a more enduring approach as compare to the faddish use of random bunkering.

The freedom to act, to impose bunkers on the landscape seems liberating in Silva’s response, a way to break from the functional bunkering that he rightly abhors.  Yet is there not power and beauty in the act of restraint, in not countering one deprived trend to make bunkers functional with another equally deprived trend to make bunkers random, which ironically is following conventional patterns.  These random acts become formalized, codified, and are no longer random.  The premeditated need to walk the land to randomly sprinkle bunkers can dampen the architect’s ingenuity, the architect’s need to find an original response from the land, and cause the architect to only see in a very narrow way, thus limiting ingenuity and exploration.  Invoking Ross and others as evidence something like random bunkering is a high form of architecture is further evidence that there can be real harm in mob mentality.  When the mighty master is wrong, he is wrong and there is no justification in promoting his bad ideas.  The commitment to making the land more obvious seems more liberating and unconventional as compared to the freedom to act upon sentimental feelings in a random way.

 

[Norbert P]

Kelly's essay is so well written!

I am especially intrigued by the last sentence.

 . . . "The commitment to making the land more obvious seems more liberating and unconventional as compared to the freedom to act upon sentimental feelings in a random way." KBM

[Lloyd_Cole]

The picture could practically be from anywhere, there is nothing to it that evokes the meaning of Cape Cod.

I wonder, now Kelly is back, and given that I and others were not here in 2002, if he might let us know what the meaning of Cape Cod is? Does it differ from the meaning of Nantucket?

Teenagers, when striving to be different, or unique, inevitably end up looking the same as each other. If they realised that they were already unique, then they wouldn't undermine their essence.
I suspect that a GCA trying too hard could fall into this trap.

[Norbert P]

There once was a man from Cape Cod
Who's , er, . . .

Definitely not interchangable.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

What is the reason for resurrecting these old threads, have we run out of pertinent topics and are becoming redundant? (I would answer, yes.) This feels like GCA’s version of a greatest hits album that a band releases because it can’t come up with any good new material. What’s next, a live album?

Anthony

[Lloyd_Cole]

What is the reason for resurrecting these old threads, have we run out of pertinent topics and are becoming redundant? (I would answer, yes.) This feels like GCA’s version of a greatest hits album that a band releases because it can’t come up with any good new material. What’s next, a live album?

Anthony

That can often be the album that gets the next generation into the music.. and I'd never seen this thread before.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

L:

I understand that, but why not just start a new thread? What's the point of going back and dredging up an old thread where the first 15 posts have already been made? The tone of the topic was established in 2002. It's a new generation, maybe they should find their own music. We keep this up and in no time we'll be down to a half dozen threads, sort of our version of Classis Rock radio. FREEBIRD! Whoohoooooo.

Anthony

[Lloyd_Cole]

L:

I understand that, but why not just start a new thread? What's the point of going back and dredging up an old thread where the first 15 posts have already been made? The tone of the topic was established in 2002. It's a new generation, maybe they should find their own music. We keep this up and in no time we'll be down to a half dozen threads, sort of our version of Classis Rock radio. FREEBIRD! Whoohoooooo.

Anthony

Until the search engine here works, I think it's a really good idea.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd,

As I remember the bunker looked like it could be on any typical course you see in any other part of the country.  There are pictures of courses I see and immediately have a feel for the character of the land on a more regional level, possibly even able to identify the geographical location.  Unfortunately I can not put the meaning of Cape Cod into words other than to say the bunker, or should I say the overall picture with the bunker as the main focus, did not in any way evoke what I remember of Cape Cod from brief visits and other pictures.

Kelly

I agree that many times one will see something on a course, or perhaps a whole course and feel that it is just wrong, that it looks like a template imposed upon an unwilling plot of land. My problem with your statement is that it implies, perhaps accidentally, that there is one 'Cape Cod' aesthetic, that you need to tap into to get it right.  Take Long Island - is there one 'Long Island'? is it Maidstone, is it NGLA, or Shinnecock? Surely all of them are great.

[Mike Sweeney]

I agree that many times one will see something on a course, or perhaps a whole course and feel that it is just wrong, that it looks like a template imposed upon an unwilling plot of land. My problem with your statement is that it implies, perhaps accidentally, that there is one 'Cape Cod' aesthetic, that you need to tap into to get it right.  Take Long Island - is there one 'Long Island'? is it Maidstone, is it NGLA, or Shinnecock? Surely all of them are great.

While it would help to have the old picture above, I would tend to agreewith that. Cape Cod National sits 2 miles or less from Eastward Ho! and they are polar opposites. CCN sits on some Pine Valleyish terrain (with wetlands on a couple of holes) and the land at EH! has been well documented here.

[Randy Van Sickle]

For anyone who'd like to see that photo that was originally posted, go to http://www.wequassett.com/, then click on "golf and recreation", then click on the small image at the bottom of the page.  When I posted that image nearly six years ago (wow!), it was a static  link, and now it is a flash object, thus the reason for the broken link.

FWIW, I do agree with KBM that it does not look like "Cape Cod" in that photo, but it really is not a good representation of what the golf course really looks like.  Rather it is an image that someone at the Resort probably "thinks" a golf course should look like.  Not sure if it is an airbrushed image or not.

[Lloyd_Cole]

In the spirit of good fellowship, regardless that it was irrelevant  to my argument, I have copied the flash image and here it is -




 

[Lloyd_Cole]

Unfortunately I can not put the meaning of Cape Cod into words other than to say the bunker, or should I say the overall picture with the bunker as the main focus, did not in any way evoke what I remember of Cape Cod from brief visits and other pictures.

Kelly

Please bear with me then. Are you saying that what you meant by 'the meaning of Cape Cod' (which is a pretty grand sounding concept) is actually more like the 'spirit' of CC or more specifically the nebulous feeling as to what YOUR idea of the spirit of CC is? Your understanding of the spirit of Cape Cod?

'My understanding of the spirit of Cape Cod' sounds like something that Silva might not worry too much about. In fact I wouldn't suggest you pay any mind to his understanding of it... and that is fine.

Now before you jump up, I only posted this because I noticed the gushing praise, and for the most part I agree - this line - 'The beauty of the land as displayed in the picture on this thread becomes subordinate to the architect and shaper’s need to present one more long, sandy bunker, not unlike thousands you can see anywhere else in the world.' says all you needed to say.

Unfortunately, in my opinion anyway, you followed it with the line I take to task. Surely if you make bold statements you should be able to back them up.

Fair enough?

[TEPaul]

With some of these posts, particularly Kelly Blake Moran's and maybe Lloyd Cole's, it seems appropriate to mention something Max Behr said;

"Golf architecture is not an art of representation, it's an art of interpretation."

I've been looking at that for years and thinking about it and I must admit I don't think I really understand it.

Would some of you geniuses care to help me out as to its meanings?

[TEPaul]

Sounds good to me Kelly.

I mean, I guess if a golf architect is going to do something with a landform he's going to have to bring some interpretation of something he sees or has seen somewhere to it.

But Behr's remark could certainly mean that any number of architects could look at that very same landform and bring a number of different interpretations to it and they may all be wonderful somehow, at least potentially.

And I know what you mean about buying presents for someone. I'm a little different than you are that way because sometimes I like to buy presents for people that I like even knowing they might not like them much.

One Christmas, among some other presents, I bought my wife a book of about fifty car washes. You should have seen her face when she opening it. To this day she's not let me forget it. She said that book of fifty car washes just could be the least romantic Christmas present imaginable.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I assume you mis-typed something in the previous post. I could swear I read that you gave your wife 50 car washes. But that can't be right.

Bob

[TEPaul]

I considered spelling it carwashes. Would that be better?

Don't laugh, one of my best friends gave his wife a shotgun that same Christmas because she apparently told him she sometimes got scared in the house when he wasn't around. And he knew good and well she hated guns. That guy is lucky he lived. As for those car washes I gave my wife, I just ended up using most of them myself which was actually the whole point in the first place.

Bob, I've done even worse in my wife's opinion. One Christmas just after I met her I gave her a telephone cord. Not the telephone, mind you, just a telephone cord.