The problem with Obvious

[Tom_Doak]

As a counterpart to the Old Macdonald thread, I thought I would explore the opposite position a little bit.

I don't believe that "dramatic" is the opposite to "subtle," as used in the other thread.  I would be the LAST to argue that scenic courses do not benefit from a bump in popularity and in ratings due to their beauty.  But, since we as architects only have a limited opportunity to make courses more beautiful, that's not worth a long discussion.

The point of the "subtlety" thread seems to be that golfers won't like a course that isn't "all right there in front of them," as the pros like to say, that they'll be lost and confused and not want to go back.

So, what are the examples of great courses that are extremely successful with that formula, once you take scenery out of the equation?  I am just not seeing them.  The best-known resort courses in America are Bandon, Pebble, and Pinehurst ... none of them got anywhere for being Obvious.

[Chris Shaida]

Torre Pines -- as in, is its 'obviousness' the reason for much of its appeal?

[PCCraig]

Whistling Straits in Kohler is pretty straight forward, despite the intent to be a homage to links golf.

[Adam Russell]

Sea Island's the only one I could come up with off the top of my head, and I don't think it's in the "great" category. I've always thought golfers can understand subtlety even if they can't explain it right after a first play. The best course intrigue - they always have some part of the design that makes people question why.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

The word "obvious" might be a pretty good one for this subject but I wonder if the word "predictable" is not an even better one for what you might be driving at?

There may even be some significant degree of duality or counter-intuitiveness in this kind of thing in that perhaps many, many golfers do not exactly glory in courses and architeture that is highly predictable but a good many of them seem to get excessively annoyed by unpredicability in architecture and courses particularly if they hit shots that are technically well executed but otherwise not very well thought-out (strategically?) before execution.

[JESII]

If we are using the word "obvious" I would start with Pine Valley.

What are the real question marks there?

For me, it's tied with Shinnecock as best course(s) I can imagine, but the dramatic hazards really take just about all the mystery away, don't they?

If we're using "predictable", I would probably not use PV, but that's really a whole different word and meaning...isn't it.

[Brent Hutto]

I'll float three names, two USA and one UK...

Royal Birkdale. Is the occasional "knock" on it as an Open venue concerning its lack of fairway undulation and routing through instead of across the dunes in effect a criticism of the Obvious? I played there as a bogey golfer with little links golf experience and don't recall being particularly puzzled or surprised by any shots that reacted in non-Obvious ways, other than the immensely ball-gathering bunkers throughout the course (that's more a maintenance than a design feature).

Sage Valley. With the exception of three longish and/or quite well protected (at the green) one-shotters and an all-world (in my opinion) big-bending dogleg right Par 5 most of the holes seemed to me as presenting a large-scale set of curving and/or uphill/downhill sweeps that are quite apparent as you stand on the tee. You may need to choose a line with some precision or subtlety but you won't necessarily need to play the course five times to understand it.

Spyglass Hill. I knew that Sage Valley reminded me of something and I think Spy may be it. Bold contours, greens that are large but with smaller effective targets. If there is a necessary or preferred angle with which to hit an approach or recovery shot it tends to be visible from hundreds of yards away. It was my first RTJ, Sr. (as Sage Valley was my first Fazio) and I found them each immensely fun to play regardless of any Obviousness.

I appreciate quirk as well as anyone but apparently unlike some I an also appreciate and enjoy courses where the shot requirements and "strategy" (such as it is for the double-digit handicapper) are mostly understandable upon the first or second exposure to each hole. What all three of these courses share (less so perhaps at Birkdale) is a certain sense of scale and sweep that causes me to visualize the flight the ball against those sweeping fairways, stirring backgrounds and big greens. I feel like I'm playing my little specific shots as strokes on a broad canvas as opposed to a more busily undulating and/or more quirk-filled course where I'm trying to help the ball find its way through numerous invisible deflections and barely perceived hazards. Big world theory, yada, yada.

P.S. Mike Strantz is my favorite recently-working architect and I think that's because his courses tend to have the big, bold sweeping curves that I like along with a fair dose of un-Obvious detail work scattered about. And some of his greens very few others would actually build, they are so extreme.

[Matthew Petersen]

There are also different kinds of obvious. There's obviousness that lacks strategy, such as a straight hole with trees bordering all sides of a tight fairway. But there's also obvious that maintains strategy, such as a hole with a split fairway. There is definite strategy in the latter hole and even casual players will be able to recognize it. But many such players will not recognize the strategic value of a wide open hole (I haven't seen Old Mac so I'll use the local example of Talking Stick North). They just see a wide fairway, which is nice but not very interesting. And if they end up in a bad position on such a hole they decide it must be "unfair," though no one would make such a comment if they ended up in a bad spot on a more obvious divided fairway hole.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

With Pine Valley, I would count about 5-6 tee shots that for the inexperienced with the course are not particularly predictable or obvious. We can get into approach shots and other shots lin that vein later.

[Anthony Gray]

 Chambers Bay would be a contender. Cruden Bay has great subtelty without overwhelming drama or buety. Diamante you rarely see the ocean but is great fun...quirk with class. Never been to Sand Hills but that may be the choice of many who have.

  Anthony

[JESII]

Tom,

Which 5 or 6 tee shots are subtle or unpredictable?

[Matthew Petersen]

Sully:

With Pine Valley, I would count about 5-6 tee shots that for the inexperienced with the course are not particularly predictable or obvious. We can get into approach shots and other shots lin that vein later.

This seems like another good example re: degrees of obviousness.

For example, one of the more common criticisms I see of Fazio designs is that they are generally very obvious in that the fairways and hazards are well-defined. Now, I have not played very many Fazio courses but I am very familiar with his Raptor course at Grayhawk and have come to appreciate there that many holes which seem obvious are not. There are many holes where one side of the fairway is far preferrable, or a lay up might be a better play, etc.

Pine Valley strikes me the same way. It is very starkly defined and thus obvious, but also it has many more subtle features within that obviousness.

[JMEvensky]

TPC-Sawgrass,Stadium Course.

Most of the trouble is easy to spot.It was built for the guys who "like everything in front of them".

Whether it's great or not is debatable,but it wasn't designed for everyone.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I would say the tee shots at Pine Valley that for various reasons are not all that obvious or predictable (depending on one's length and one's experience with the course) are #4, #6, #8, #9, #11, #13, #16. And there are a couple of others that aren't all that obvious or predictable even if more subtely so such as #1 and #15 and perhaps even #18 if one tries to play too much into the right side of the fairway.

[JESII]

Pine Valley strikes me the same way. It is very starkly defined and thus obvious, but also it has many more subtle features within that obviousness.

Matthew,

What are some of the subtle features at Pine Valley that an average sort of 10 handicapper will benefit from learning about?

[Alex Miller]

The Wentworth Re-design pictures illustrate this problem quite nicely.

[JESII]

Tom,

I think if you break it out into classes of distances a player hits their drive - say 200 - 225 then 225 - 250 then 250 - 275 and above 275 you'll find that only one or maybe two holes will be at all subtle for any one player.

Tell me what you mean, though, about #18 if the player tries to ge tit too much into the right side of the fairway.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

When the course is playing firm and fast "through the green" the tee shot can slip right off the fairway on #18 quite easily if hit too much down the right (plus a new bunker was added in there). I have seen that surprise a lot of even very good players not all that familiar with the course mostly in The Crump. The same is true on the tee shot on #15 and #16.

Of course if you are going to apply a spectrum difference of tee shot distance of around 80+ yards there are all kinds of different ramifications on those tee shots I said were not all that obvious or predictable.

[Jud_T]

I'd say a lot of tour courses may fall into this category.  Personally I don't think there's much subtlety tee-to-green at the current incarnation of Medinah #3.  I guess I agree with the original hypothesis...

[Mac Plumart]

Tom D...I think the way you phrased your question, "what are the examples of great courses that are extremely successful with that formula, once you take scenery out of the equation?", the answer just might be "there are none" given the audience you are asking the question to.

Using the word "great" on this site is almost always met with skeptics and cynics.  "Great" is generally reserved for only a handful of courses.  In fact, I've seen Friar's Head, Kiawah Ocean, Augusta National, and Pinehurst (to name just a few) criticized on this website.  If I am not mistaken each and every one of these courses are rated and ranked VERY highly among the world's best known golf course critics.

However, I will throw out the names of a few courses that seem to be highly regarded by many...which may be less subtle or nuanced than most.  Shadow Creek, Black Diamond Ranch Quarry, Atlanta Athletic Club, Secession.  I am sure there are more than these, but these are a few I have played that I liked very much, but wasn't as mystified and/or curious to play again like I was with Inverness, East Lake, Lookout Mountain, Harbour Town, or Kiawah Ocean.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think on this thread and the other, we're confusing ourselves with vague terminology because we're unable/unwilling to tackle the real question inherent in both discussions, namely - "Can a golf course be great if no one who plays it thinks so"?

Me, I don't know.

Peter   

[Jed Rammell]

I think on this thread and the other, we're confusing ourselves with vague terminology because we're unable/unwilling to tackle the real question inherent in both discussions, namely - "Can a golf course be great if no one who plays it thinks so"?

Me, I don't know.

Peter   

Peter -

I might rephrase the question to "Can a golf course be great if the learning curve is so steep that it takes numerous plays?"

[Sean_A]

I think on this thread and the other, we're confusing ourselves with vague terminology because we're unable/unwilling to tackle the real question inherent in both discussions, namely - "Can a golf course be great if no one who plays it thinks so"?

Me, I don't know.

Peter   

The daydreamer in me wants to say yes with one proviso, at least some people have to think the course is great even if a small minority.  But then what is a great course and is golf greatness independent of humans?  I can't really answer the first question, but I don't think any aspect of golf greatness can be independent of people.

Ciao
 

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, One of the negative aspects of obvious is that it doesn't allow the golfer to use their intuition. Counter, or otherwise.

There's few greater feelings than being able to predict what a designer has done, beyond what the eye can see, on their virgin trek, sans caddie. Also, having seen many pictures of totally blind shots on GB&I courses, with only aiming poles or rocks to assist the virgin, it strikes me as likely being a cultural difference. Would that be accurate?

Reminds me of the 2nd shot on SFGC's 2nd hole. From the fairway, the left side's slope. nearer the green, was invisible to me from the middle of the fairway. Yet, I was confident the designer was blinding me to the good stuff. So to speak. I trusted my intuition and was rewarded. Same was true on my first time around Ballyneal when we reached the 6th tee. Since I had played Apache Stronghold a couple of times, I was confident you were blinding me to the good stuff. You should've seen Rupert's face when I answered correctly on the proper line.

[Brent Hutto]

Adam,

You're back to the trivial argument in favor of surprises for the person who has never seen the course before. For my part I fail to see much value in the "Oooh, you can't see that from the tee. I'll know better next time" experience. Just like in the eternal rangefinder thread where someone always chimes in with the complaint that knowing it is 143 yard to the middle of the green somehow invalidates all sorts of tricky optical illusions that the architect would otherwise be able to indulge in.

As always, I think that such features are virtually meaningless in assessing the quality of a golf course.