What agreements exist between architect and golfer?

[Adam Clayman]

In another Thread, a very astute young man asked a question worthy of it's own discussion.

Kyle Harris said...

"Suspension of disbelief is an agreement between author and reader... What agreements exist between architect and golfer?

I'm guilty of only thinking about this in the context of what I consider great, and, wondered if others who thought differently would be willing to share their answer to Kyle's question. Here's mine;

First 3 things that came to mind was Fun, quickly followed by Challenge, ending up at Options. I expect to decide my own destiny on every swing, and, I expect to have choices on how to complete the task at hand. (Vertically, Horizontally & Distance control) Give me a round that challenges me in an infinite variety of situations with multiple ways to "play the shot" and I'm going to have Fun. That's what I expect to experience the first and 100th time around that course, if it's very good and/or great course in my eyes.

Ok, that's what I expect from the person who slung together the routing, built any features, and those who care for the turf, on a golf course.


What say you?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It is a great philosophical question and In reality, while a gca has only a written agreement with the owner, and in many ways is only obligated to satisfy his wishes, there is always that need to consider who will actually use the damn place.

I suppose that the suspension of disbelief (that a golf course is natural) is also present between gca and golfer......

I also suspect that the golfer believes deep down that the gca is providing him a reasonably safe environment and the gca believes that the golfer will agree to act reasonably on the golf course.......not aiming shots in range of others, not driving carts while drunk, knowing enough about etiquette, cart driving and golf to not be a general jackass.....

I agree with fun and challenge being an implicit agreement between gca and golfer. I think golfers expect the landscape to have been reasonably arranged so that most shots are doable within their normal golfing skill set, or at least of a decent players skill set.

And lastly, that fun should explicity be unique in some way so it is worth playing this golf course and not another one.

It seems funny that while the two "sides" have never met, that they expect so much of each other!  I think the gca and golfer should both agree that it is only right to blame the golfer and not the architect for any golfing troubles, although, I have not had unanimous sign off on that one from golfers yet.....

 

[Adam Clayman]

.......not aiming shots in range of others, not driving carts while drunk, knowing enough about etiquette, cart driving and golf to not be a general jackass.....
 

Funny how often all those offenses can be seen on public courses.

Jeff, Do you really expect all of that?

 I'm in full agreement that any golfer who blames an architect for their golfing frustrations, likely falls into one or more of the above quoted categories of offenders.

[Sean_A]

From my perspective I would say I have expectations of the archie rather than an agreement.  In truth, my only expectation are that I am not bored.  I can accept and admire all sorts of stuff under the banner of variation.  It doesn't matter if I ultimately approve or not as my expectations are high enough that I must accept failure on the archie's part.  What I can't abide by is boredom.  There is no excuse for an archie to build a boring product with all we know about architecture.  I know its a rather vague term, but I know it when I see it.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

The simple answer is there is of course no agreement of any kind. Throw in the clients requirement for the usual feature cart, tracks housing then quite frankly there is in many cases a serious disagreement, some may even question the architect intent. However, we live in the real world and many understand that the architect is only following a brief laid down by his client, who may or may not be considering the Golfer but his profit line.

The next question perhaps should be answered by the architects, are you designing a golf course or an amusement part with the sole aim of making the client a quick (whatever that may mean profit) on his investment. In other words, you are just doing your employers bidding.

My own opinion is that the community should own the courses in the form of the local Council, or Private Clubs (with the availability of daily membership packages) that should be responsible for our courses. This is a format that seems to have worked well here for the best part of 150 years. No agreement between architect and golfer, but there was an early understanding between the Clubs Committee and the designers that started to evaporate around the early days of the 20th Century. The start of the so-called Golden Age when designers/architects believed that they always new better than their clients. However, as always, that is open to your own position and point of view, but there is no spiritual or legal agreement protecting the poor golfer.   

Melvyn

[Ronald Montesano]

Adam, expand on "decide my own destiny," please.  Does it mean "that damned tree impedes my natural fade/draw/slice/hook/sky ball and it should be removed!!  What kind of architect (Cornish) would have left it there?"  I had that beef at Leatherstocking last June, and simply attempted to hit a fade instead of a draw.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I don't think of golf as a quick buck business, and neither should owners.  And, in most cases, the owner should have the interest of the golfer in mind for fear that he won't make any buck at all.  Granted, there are the housing developers who build golf courses for reasons other than golf, and this leads to the long walks and condo canyons.  But still, in the big picture, they think they are looking out for the golfers who want the view and convenience of a golf course out their back door.


Sean,

Your point about boredom is similar to mine about being somewhat unique, but perhaps better stated.  Given that golf is the one sport where the design of the non standard playing field can and does make a difference in dailey enjoyment of the course, it seems a presumed obligation of the gca to make the most of it and make the design make a difference.

How many times to the public council's presume that the golfers want the lowest cost and thus alter architecture in favor of maintenance costs, which isn't exactly in the golfers total best interest, even if it accomodates most golfers most basic desire - affordable golf.  However, many owners forget the golfer and are really trying to satisfy who they hear from most - their pro complaining about slow play and the super fighting increased maintenance costs and an inadequate budget.  

Here is where things get intereresting after opening.  Features that get changed for golfers usually get changed if a few vocal golfers complain about it.  Thus, is this a case of golfers "enforcing" their end of the gca/golfer agreement at the expense of the original architecture?  In this light, gca changes are actually quite acceptable since they become "the will of the (vocal) people."

Adam,

I was thinking of a gca's attitude about lawsuits that they may face.  In most cases, it seems to us that carts flipping over, errant balls striking other golfers, etc. are actually golfer error and the law backs us up in having to only to design for what a reasonable person should be able to do to make a course safe.  Many frivolous suits (and I know there are not that many) come from golfers who didn't act reasonably and got hurt but are looking for others to blame, no?

I wonder if Mac looked out over 16 at CPC and even briefly considered not building that hole on the chance some drunken golfer would kill themselves climbing down a rock to reclaim a Spalding Dot?

I also think your wording of "decide my own destiny" is good and somewhat similar to my "doable" comment.  Again using 16CPC, if that had no bail out left, Mac would have decided the destiny of many, many golfers.  I have also used the child physc analogy - if I give the golfer/child two choices they calmly debate amonst them. If I say no, or stop, they fight me tooth and nail.  Always better to let the golfer have the options, and then if they hang themselves, they know deep down it was their own fault.  Present a shot they just can't hit (a la 250 yard carry with no options) and they will not be happy campers.

[Kyle Harris]

Does everybody at least understand where I'm coming from with the suspension of disbelief agreement?

In writing, the readers are willing to accept certain seemingly impossible or statistically near-impossible events that occur in order to advance the plot. For example, in the latest Star Trek movie, the viewer accepts that Kirk is marooned on the same moon upon which Nero marooned Spock prime since it advances the plot. Even though it feels like it was extremely lucky that Spock Prime, Kirk and even Scotty would happen to be on the same moon...

Using suspension of disbelief for the writer is almost like using credit in the sense that the writer can only use it so many times before the story becomes forced or contrived.

What compromises made by architects do we readily accept? For example - the short hole used to get the golfer across an awkward part of the property.

How does the architect build credit through the design such that the "compromise" hole is more accepted?

What does the architect do/build that makes the golfer feel that enough is enough?

[Sean_A]

Does everybody at least understand where I'm coming from with the suspension of disbelief agreement?

In writing, the readers are willing to accept certain seemingly impossible or statistically near-impossible events that occur in order to advance the plot. For example, in the latest Star Trek movie, the viewer accepts that Kirk is marooned on the same moon upon which Nero marooned Spock prime since it advances the plot. Even though it feels like it was extremely lucky that Spock Prime, Kirk and even Scotty would happen to be on the same moon...

Using suspension of disbelief for the writer is almost like using credit in the sense that the writer can only use it so many times before the story becomes forced or contrived.

What compromises made by architects do we readily accept? For example - the short hole used to get the golfer across an awkward part of the property.

How does the architect build credit through the design such that the "compromise" hole is more accepted?

What does the architect do/build that makes the golfer feel that enough is enough?

Kyle

Don't your questions depend on who is answering?  I know of several concepts which people can get a bit shirty with if employed too often: blindness, penal carries, long rough & hard greens are a few that often get mentioned.  Of course, what is "too much" is down to the individual. 

On the flip side (that is credit side), it is more diffciult to point out the the elements because everybody seems to have their own ideas about the game and what it means to them.  The first obvious split is the idea of compettion and what that means in terms of architecture.  At the moment, we are going through one of those extreme periods where competition at the highest level seems to be unduly influencing the architecture of those who play rather modest competions or just friendly golf.  However, in general, for players sich as me who have no ambitions in the game other than to enjoy myself, I think the concept of courses looking harder than they are puts some credit into the bank.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Sean,

Of course it depends on who is answering. I put it out there for 1500 people to answer

Well 1499 and whoever Hamilton B. Hearst is...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

I think I got it when said that the gca asks the golfer to accept that there was some sort of natural depression everywhere he decided to put a bunker, some kind of small plateau where he put a green or tee, etc.  Talk about statistical improbabilities, and there you have it!

The closest I can think of "credits" would be course balance.  As a golfer, I think if I was an average putter, (and I wish I was as good as average!) I would feel bad if I got beat up on green after green. If I hit a slice, I would feel offended if hole after hole could only be played by a hook, if a short hitter, offended by numerous forced carries just past my distance, etc.  Not every shot can be equally "doable" by every golfer, of course, but I think they feel okay about the gca if there is some kind of balanced challenge where they have a chance to finish shots successfully AND if from time to time, there are holes that allow their particular skill set to shine.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

The bunker placement thing is a very good example, IMO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

I recall Tom Doak writing here that he sometimes places bunkers in those random places (I know he hates that word) specifically because it contributes to the illusion that they may be natural. What is chances that so many bunkers could be found 286 yards from the tee as so often happens on golf holes.  It's a good, if perhaps too expensive for some owners, concept.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

Bunker design plays a role here too. Have we begun to accept that bunkers must be easily accessible for Mechanical rakes such that they have to be designed with an "entrance" if they are to be very deep? How about visibility? Center-line placement?

Melvyn brings up a situation with cart traffic. For him, I'm sure there is to be no agreement for carts and I'm just behind him in that regard - but how necessary of an evil are they really?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

In my practice, the bunker liners are starting to have an impact on design, since if installed, they usually require hand raking.  Thus, bunkers are getting smaller to reduce the initial cost of the liner and ongoing maintenance labor.  If I think machine rakes will be used, I know that the sand lobes must have at least 16-18 feet diameters for turning, though. 

I also pay attention to the turf capes.  They should be either 18 foot diameter to match the typical bank mower minimum turn capabilities, or perhaps be very narrow to minimize weed whacking, which fits nicely with reduced sand area.

Other than eliminating bunkers that see too little (or in some cases, too much) "action" I don't see a lot of generally accepted limitations on placement.

RE Cart paths, I have seen a few instances of gca's trying to build old style paths with two paved tracks and grass between like an old country lane. I have not yet tried to fool any golfer into thinking an old country lane was in existance and I happened to locate the golf hole next to it to take advantage of it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle & Jeff

Way too deep being this close to Christmas, however that is how I like my bunkers. These shallow ones are as good as a wet and weak handshake or as they say as welcome as a fart in a space suit.  

But do not get me onto Carts please, starting to dream about them, as sleek two seater sports jobs that seem to represent ones sexual drive. Hell that is crossing the line, will someone not removed these Satan toys for me? 
We, worth a try if there numbers go down

Merry Christmas To you both

Melvyn

[Adam Clayman]

Adam, expand on "decide my own destiny," please.  Does it mean "that damned tree impedes my natural fade/draw/slice/hook/sky ball and it should be removed!!  What kind of architect (Cornish) would have left it there?"  I had that beef at Leatherstocking last June, and simply attempted to hit a fade instead of a draw.

Ronald, I wasn't thinking of any specific situation or circumstance when I wrote that. It's more of a general statement on what I refer to as dictated designs, and, maintenance melds, that force a specific path and/or trajectory, rather than allowing me to decide.

Using your example of a tree, I typically don't have a problem unless there is absolutely no way to creatively play a shot because of it. i.e. The local course here has a short two shot hole that has trees lining the fairway and one placed left center of the fairway. There are two fronting bunkers at 5 and 7 O'clock. The owner/super keeps digging out the bunkers to raise the lips. I feel this is fundamentally wrong because he's removing the opportunity to run a shot through the bunker, when I am under the one of the trees and a low shot is all that is available. I see it as fundamentally wrong because... here I am willing to take on the risk of ending up in the bunker and he's removing that shot from everyone's bag because he doesn't think people should be able to do that. (Run a ball through a bunker)

[JMEvensky]

An agreement that the architect will,whenever possible,act as the golfer's advocate with the developer/owner.

The architect is usually the client of the owner,not the golfer.Sometimes,what the owner may want and what the golfer may want are entirely different.They usually have different agenda.

I think that the architect should,when practical,try to choose what's best for the golfer.

I realize that this would probably be difficult in most cases so I used as many qualifiers as I could.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Adam and Kyle, an interesting question. 

I wonder if this concept gets less attention in golf architecture than in the architecture of buildings--it seems to me that building architects are very concerned with how users will interact with a building, and the best buildings have features that lure in the users and make their use of the building both pleasant and efficient for repetitive use.  Surely most GCAs also are concerned with making golf "fun" for the users of the course and as KBM says to "awaken the mind," but on some courses it seems possible that 1) they just plain screw up or phone it in, or 2) other design requirements hinder them, or 3) they defer much to client desires and those agreements overwhelm their intention to agree on the side of golfers.

Lee Trevino alluded to the latter issues in a recent Golf Digest interview when he said [paraphrasing] there are too many courses built that are monuments to the egos of the builders.  He suggested he'd like to go back to the concept of:  take a flat piece of land, put in some bunkers, and let's play.

To "agree" with me  , golf course architects should not build holes

* That cause golfers to think Why would you do this?    To me the 18th hole at Pete Dye's Whistling Straits is a great example of this--move a jillion yards of dirt and build a hole that is just off-the-charts bad as a finishing hole and virtually unplayable in any case, only to be loathed by both good players and mediocre.

* That are so constrained by other factors that they just don't work.  There's an example of this also at the Straits course--the 5th hole, in which Dye, apparently constrained by environmental issues, built a par-5 that snakes around a wetlands.  An awkward "solution" to the problem that makes you wonder--Are you sure there wasn't another way around this issue?  It's just hard for me to believe that they found the optimal solution for that property with that design...but Mr. Dye is as accomplished as they come...so perhaps...

[Adam Clayman]

  Surely most GCAs also are concerned with making golf "fun" for the users of the course and as KBM says to "awaken the mind," but on some courses it seems possible that 1) they just plain screw up or phone it in, or 2) other design requirements hinder them, or 3) they defer much to client desires and those agreements overwhelm their intention to agree on the side of golfers.

Eric, Agree there's a form of mal-practice when it's phoned in, but, ultimately the end result is caused by the shapers. So there are examples of phoned in designs that turned out decent courses because the contractor knew what he was doing or knows golf very well. Few mind you.

What came to my mind is an inherent subjectivity when someone complains about a design choice. All one need to do is ask for the bitcher's justification for the criticism to find out if it has any merit.

The most bitching I hear always comes from a guy who considers himself a good golfer, but knows little about the spiritual side of golf and hasn't the humility needed to accept the fact their results are based on their flaws and not the architects.

[Tim Bert]

Does everybody at least understand where I'm coming from with the suspension of disbelief agreement?

In writing, the readers are willing to accept certain seemingly impossible or statistically near-impossible events that occur in order to advance the plot. For example, in the latest Star Trek movie, the viewer accepts that Kirk is marooned on the same moon upon which Nero marooned Spock prime since it advances the plot. Even though it feels like it was extremely lucky that Spock Prime, Kirk and even Scotty would happen to be on the same moon...
 

I must admit I got a chuckle out of this comment.  I kind of thought the agreement between writer and reader to suspend disbelief began with accepting that there is some intergalactic star fleet and all these people fight aliens and monsters from other planets and worlds.  It amused me that Kyle chose such an extreme example of science fiction and then actually uses a small coincidence in the movie to make his point as oppose to using the entire genre as the example.  Weren't we asked to suspend disbelief just by showing up for the movie in the first place (unless of course Kyle has Spock ears and attends conventions regularly.)  But I digress.
 

The real reason I wanted to chime in here is to say that Kyle's agreement exists in one style of writing - namely fiction. I am wondering if we are starting the question o broadly to imply that an agreement exists at the macro level of golf architecture. Is it possible that different agreements exist within different subsets (minimalism, resort, housing development course, muni, etc)

[JC Jones]

As someone who teaches contract law, I very much hesitate to use the word "agreement." 

Are there any reciprocal promises between the architect and the golfer? 

[Guy Nicholson]

Contract between architect, golfer

The architect agrees to satisfy client's needs and maximize golfer's needs.
The golfer agrees to consider how well the architect has performed that duty.

Contract between architect, client

The architect agrees to satisfy golfer's needs and maximize client's needs.
The client agrees to consider how well the architect has performed that duty.

Contract between client, golfer

The client agrees to satisfy golfer's needs while maximizing client's needs.
The golfer agrees to satisfy client's needs while maximizing golfer's needs.

[Kyle Harris]

Tim Bert:

I think the analogous situation in golf to my Star Trek analogy is that the golfer accepts the rules of golf as the "world," like the viewer accepts the canon of Star Trek as fact. The plot is still driven by the characters interacting within that world - not the world itself.

 I think everyone here would agree that if the stated goal of the game were to simple get the ball from the tee to the hole, the easiest method in which to do that is to pick up the ball and put it in the hole!

However, as Jeff noted, the initial suspension of disbelief comes with golf's features. Bunkers don't randomly appear with the architect, we assume the architect placed the tees and greens with skill, etc.

All lawyers, accountants, etc.,

This isn't an implicit agreement - it's an artistic agreement. The golfer agrees to accept certain contrived or arbitrary things in order to advance the enjoy of the course and the game.

[Kyle Harris]

However, as Jeff noted, the initial suspension of disbelief comes with golf's features. Bunkers don't randomly appear with the architect, we assume the architect placed the tees and greens with skill, etc.

All lawyers, accountants, etc.,

This isn't an implicit agreement - it's an artistic agreement. The golfer agrees to accept certain contrived or arbitrary things in order to advance the enjoy of the course and the game.

Kyle,

Bunkers have been a part of the game for several hundred years, I don't think golfers today suspend belief or accept them as contrived or arbitrary...They expect them to be there. It's given, it is an inherent part of the experience.

Sure we do. That expectation is the suspension of disbelief, just as fortuitous random events have been an accepted part of fiction for hundreds of years. The idea is that the author has to be good to "sell" the reader on the notion of the random event not being contrived for the plot.

What role does the architect play? Haven't you ever seen a bunker that just didn't fit? Could that not be a case of the architect not living up to their side of the agreement?