The problem with Obvious

[George Pazin]

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.

Wow, you will absolutely hate my course when I build it. You're still invited, just give me a few (hundred) years.

[Richard Choi]

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.

Chambers Bay is far from obvious. You cannot imagine how many times I have heard people say "I can't even tell where the fairway ends and greens start!" to denigrate the course. The course is not for those looking for obvious.

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...obviously if no one who plays it thinks it is great, then it is not great.

But from what I know and what I've read and studied, a truly great course can and will entertain a true golf enthusiast for years and years and years...and not just the scratch golfer, the average golfer as well.  Think Mackenzie and The Old Course.  MacKenzie from my understanding wasn't a good golfer (at least for the majority of his life), but he was arguably the greatest architect ever to live and certainly knew greatness on a golf course.  In The Spirit of St. Andrews, he says that even after playing TOC for 25+ years, it was still showing him new nuances and ways to play it...this in his mind made and/or kept it great.  

I've heard Tom Doak say comments about courses (Seminole I think is one) that go something like this...if someone doesn't think this course is good, they don't know what good is.  Like MacKenzie, I think Tom D. knows what makes a good/great golf course.

So, if NO ONE thinks a course is great, then it probably isn't.  But if some people think it isn't great, that doesn't mean it isn't.  It all depends on who those people are and how good they are are recognizing greatness.

[Richard Choi]

I would define and "obvious" courses this way:

1. Different strands of grass for rough, fairway, and greens to make them stand out.
2. Cross-cut fairways to make the differences between the fairways and rough stand out even more.
3. Bright white oversized bunkers to make them pop.
4. Vast water hazards that are very visible from the tee (bonus for bright white bunkers that line the edges to make them stand out even more).
5. Raised tee on almost every hole
6. Greens raised front to back to make them more visible.
7. No blind shots

Did I miss anything.

I believe that you can build a GREAT course that has all of these elements. However, a lot of the weaker courses use these elements as a sort of clutch to overcome less than ideal architecture.

[BCrosby]

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 -

A question on the same lines. If atonal music is thought of as great by professional musicians - but normal people hate it - can it really be great music?

Bob

[John Chilver-Stainer]

B.Crosby

Let’s be clear here.

There are 2 kinds of music

--- country music and all that other s**t

[Adam Clayman]

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

Brent, Jed's premise on the OM thread, that has led to this thread, was precisely about the first, or one, time visit. I make no such trivial argument. It's you who apparently are trivializing features on a golf course for the purpose of assessing it's quality. Or do I mis-read you?

[JESII]

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.

Adam,

I'm curious how these two anecdotes don't qualify as "Obvious" features.

[Greg Tallman]

Pinehurst #2 is somewhat obvious

[Tom_Doak]

 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

Anthony:

Normally I understand your posts okay, but this one sounds like it came from a different planet.  Cruden Bay without overwhelming drama or beauty?  Diamante and Chambers Bay straightforward?  I can hear Paul Cowley and RTJ 2 coughing.

Sully:

Pine Valley???

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 guess you are right, if the definition of "obvious" could be so misunderstood.

As to your question, if NO ONE really thought a course was great, then I don't know what would make it great.  

However, there are certainly varying definitions of "great".  Some here seem to favor the polarizing courses, which some players love and others dislike -- Cruden Bay, Kingsley, and Ballyneal might all fall into that category.  I can't see Old Macdonald being in that class.  I think there are a lot of people who won't get it -- who will think it's overrated, but won't actually dislike it -- and a smaller number who will think it's one of the best courses ever.  To me, that's a better result than "polarizing," though I don't mind the latter.

[Brent Hutto]

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?

Perhaps it is I who misunderstand but I took the above comment to be disparaging courses which fail to have surprise, hidden or blind features. Or at least to be commending courses which do require the first-time player to make a blind guess as to the proper place to hit the ball.

For my part I'm perfectly OK with a couple of blind shots during a round. For instance an "Alps" hole (if I'm using the right nomenclature) that has a ridge or similar feature immediately in front of the green, requiring the approach shot to by played blind. That's a great feature...after you've seen it before and know what's on the other side of the "Alps". But the first time it's totally a guessing game and that's not remotely as fun or challenging as hitting a blind shot by matching up your mental map of the green with the angle from which you're playing the shot. Likewise with that tee shot over a precipice on the back nine at Dornoch (can't recall the hole number). On second and third playing I love that hole but the first time you're just reducing to hitting it where ever the guys playing with you tell you to aim.

Surprises based on the first-time player's never having seen the target area before are lame. Sometimes perhaps unavoidable but still a detriment to the quality of the experience and my estimation of the course will consider that a bug and not a feature.

P.S. I'm not familiar with the features that you and Jim are discussing but the lamest of all is something that is a completely "obvious" feature yet hidden from the first-time player only. A blind guess first time, an absolutely no-brainer strategy every time after is not a commendable feature.

[Greg Tallman]

Tom Doak, I would concur that, for the most part, Diamante is pretty straightforward. In 6-8 rounds there I have not found any radically alternate way to play any given hole.

#17 is the most obvious exception as you could play it 274,000 times and still not feel committed over the tee shot.  

[JESII]

Sully:

Pine Valley???

What confused you the first time or two?

What do you expect would confuse someone else?

What idea took you the longest to recognize there?

[George Pazin]

I think the area in which non-obvious courses (apologies for the awkwardness of that) shine is in differentiating the good shot from the great shot. Safe plays on any course (save Pete Dye for golfers like me ) are usually fairly obvious, but when it comes to shaving that extra stroke or two, the best non-obvious courses make you really work for it, both mentally and physically, whereas the obvious types, it's strictly a matter of execution.

That was probably one of the most poorly worded paragraphs I've ever written, but hopefully someone out there will understand what I'm getting at...

[Carl Nichols]

George:
Your point is obvious to me.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I don't know how "obvious" could be a bad thing for a golf course.

If a hole presents itself with all four of its different strategies entirely obvious on the tee, then why is that a boring hole? It has four different ways to play it and that makes it interesting. Not the amount of time I have to spend to find out about all four of them. In fact, a hole where the different strategies are obvious to the first-time player is probably a masterpiece.

And a hole with several interesting strategies, but only one of them obvious to the first-time player, plays as a hole with only one strategy on that day and for that player. This does not mean it's a bad hole, but it would be better if the options were accessible.

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know how "obvious" could be a bad thing for a golf course.

If a hole presents itself with all four of its different strategies entirely obvious on the tee, then why is that a boring hole? It has four different ways to play it and that makes it interesting. Not the amount of time I have to spend to find out about all four of them. In fact, a hole where the different strategies are obvious to the first-time player is probably a masterpiece.

And a hole with several interesting strategies, but only one of them obvious to the first-time player, plays as a hole with only one strategy on that day and for that player. This does not mean it's a bad hole, but it would be better if the options were accessible.

Ulrich

Ulrich:

I can't say I agree with you there.  To me, holes with multiple fairways rarely succeed ... they force the "C" player into a preplanned route that makes the hole harder for him than for the "A" player.

I am thinking of the classic MacKenzie sketch of the long hole at St. Andrews, with its four alternate routes.  They do not diverge from the tee so much as on the second shot, and two of them are not at all obvious to most people playing The Old Course for the first time.  Yet, that hole puts most obvious holes to shame, doesn't it?

[Alex Miller]

To piggyback on Tom D's last point, just because a hole has seemingly few options doesn't mean there aren't many ways to get to that obviously ideal spot.

For instance, to use one of Mr. Doak's holes, #7 at Ballyneal. That green provides the player with so many options to access that day's pin, wherever it may be. The people who see a 90 yard wedge shot in front of them and only see the pin can't really appreciate all that the architect is doing to give the golfer options, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. That's when subtlety is greatest, when a shot appears obvious and a better option is available but only to the discerning player.

[Carl Rogers]

I might define the obvious course as one that does not take a lot of local knowledge to play well or comfortably.

I was a deer in the headlights the first 5 or 6 rounds when I started to play at Riverfront.

[BCrosby]

Tom Simpson, A.C.M Croome and Darwin all said at different times and in slightly different ways that any course that didn't require local knowledge to understand was not a very good course. (Which ought to raise questions for any rating system based on quick in and out visits.)

The "obviousness" of Muirfield was what Simpson didn't like about Colt's redo. Simpson's supressio veri (sp?) is all about the same issue.

Bob   

[Sean_A]

Tom Simpson, A.C.M Croome and Darwin all said at different times and in slightly different ways that any course that didn't require local knowledge to understand was not a very good course. (Which ought to raise questions for any rating system based on quick in and out visits.)

The "obviousness" of Muirfield was what Simpson didn't like about Colt's redo. Simpson's supressio veri (sp?) is all about the same issue.

Bob   

Wasn't Colt all (well, mostly) about the obvious?  Even so, the guy rarely put a foot wrong.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I can hear Paul Cowley and RTJ 2 coughing."



TomD:

Really? Interesting combination there. I know the second one a little bit and the first one pretty well and I never noticed they had that much in common other than perhaps the occasional cough if they have a cold.  

[John Moore II]

I might define the obvious course as one that does not take a lot of local knowledge to play well or comfortably.

I was a deer in the headlights the first 5 or 6 rounds when I started to play at Riverfront.

I can honestly say that I didn't see much that I would consider really subtle at Riverfront. I think I've played it 4 times now. The only hole that really jumps out at me as having two lines of play is #12. Well, 10 more or less does depending on which side of the pot bunker you choose. But other than that, I can't think of any other holes having multiple options as far as how to play them, maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough. Thats not saying I think Riverfront is a poor course, I don't, but I don't think it has numerous different options. Course seems rather obvious to me.

However, with all that being said, I find the course very enjoyable to play (though that enjoyment has gone down a few notches after I realized the houses left of #8 fairway were in play for me  ) and isn't enjoyment the key to it all? The course must be enjoyable and make people want to play it multiple times, obvious or subtle architecture, ehhh, whatever. Without people coming back, the course won't be in business. Where's your subtle architecture then? I say as long as people enjoy to play a given course, let it be obvious, or let it be subtle, enjoyment is the main thing to think about.

[TEPaul]

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


Jed Rammell:


Actually that is a fascinating question that might require some further serious thought and consideration, and discussion; particularly historically!

It may be the key to the prototype of all golf course architecture and best describe the thing that the Grand-daddy of all golf courses showed the world of golf and golf architecture and most of that world of golf and golf architecture never quite figured out how to pick up on!

[Jud_T]

Anyone who's ever played hundreds of rounds on an obvious layout can tell you that this ain't the recipe for greatness.  Imagine a course, Old Mac for instance, was to be your home club where you'd be playing 40+ rounds per year for the next 20 years.  In that light, taking a while to plumb it's depths becomes somewhat more tantalizing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: