The problem with Obvious

[Tom_Doak]

Ulrich:

MacKenzie used his knowledge of camouflage in two areas.  The first, as you say, was mostly aesthetic ... to make the construction work he'd done appear as natural as possible.  But he also believed in making distances hard to judge for both carries off the tee and the approach to the green, and I would have to say his goal in doing so was to make the course more interesting and more difficult.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom:

I guess in the area of detailed birdie books and laser distance finders it is hard to find the value in distances being "hard to judge". But obviously, back when MacKenzie built his courses, there was a lot more guesswork involved for all but the most accomplished players (who had professional caddies).

What I find fascinating are carry distances that are just about at the limit of what I can accomplish. Then I have to judge the wind and make a decent swing, which adds to the interest of the hole. But I won't conceal that I feel disappointed, if I make a great swing and still fall short, because the carry was much farther than it appeared. In that case it might have been more fun, if I had been able to judge the carry distance correctly and play a successful lay up (or take more club).

Still, I do take the point that there can be interest in figuring things out over repeated plays. Although most great courses are thoroughly analysed already, so I'm not sure whether it is worth it to design for non-obviousness in the long run.

Ulrich

[Richard Phinney]

I suppose an unspoken assumption in this discussion is whether a course allows for different types of shots, or always requires carry to the green (or conversely, on very hard and fast links courses) always requires some kind of run up, or on a tee shot some kind of calculation of how long the ball will run after it lands. .  My course plays much more "obviously" I think in the winter, when you need to whack the ball up on the green in most cases, and when the there is little chance of it bounding over.  the wind is another factor of course which can turn an obvious hole into something that is anything but.

Do great courses in more benign and consistent turf and weather conditions need to be less obvious?  Maybe.

 

[JESII]

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.

Tom,

You've made dismissive responses to Brett Morrissy and I when we suggested a few really great courses that might be considered "obvious" without actually addressing your disagreement...so maybe you should elaborate on your definition. And if it's simply that a course is "all right there in front of you" I'd be curious what that mease as well. I personally cannot read a green with perfect accuracy before I get to it...

[Keith OHalloran]

What about Bethpage Black? Seems to me the current set up makes the options obvious. You have to hit it very high, very straight and very far on every shot.

[Niall C]

I wanted to write that no one has yet defined "obvious" to my satisfaction. In my eyes it doesn't mean alternate fairways, just one way to play the hole or any other concrete feature. Well, I wanted to write that, until I read Jason Topp's reply #72, which I think sums up my definition of "obvious" very well. I'll paraphrase Jason:

"Obvious" means that any option is spelled out clearly - by way of a hazard, a mowing line, undulations in the ground or even (gasp!) a diagram on the tee box. Whatever means are employed (and some of them are probably better than others), but there is a conscious effort to show instead of to conceal.

I know that Alister MacKenzie was pretty big on camouflage, but I don't think he ever made a conscious effort to conceal something just for the sake of non-obviousness. I believe he concealed largely because of aesthetics, not because he thought it would make the hole more interesting to play. Any disagreement from someone more familiar with MacKenzie than I am?

Ulrich

Ulrich

Pitreavie in Dunfermline is a MacKenzie design from 1923 (?) I think. At Pitreavie he most certainly did hide hazards. On at least two holes where there is a burn fronting the green he has raised the bank nearest the golfer so that the far bank and therefore the burn is hidden. The tell tale is large stones that have been placed under the turf on one side, the side furthest from the hole, which are visible looking back down the hole. Its basically the same principle he advocated for building and hiding trenches during the war.

In one hole he even managed to hid e the burn on a steep downhill approach.

Niall

[Tim Nugent]

Niall, do you think that the raised foreground was to hide the burns or was he trying to place a ramp before the burn to allow runners to be launched over it?

Earlier someone posed the ? "Can a Course be consisdered great if it takes 4 or 5 rounds to understand it?"  I wonder, if the flip-side isn't the real ?   "Can a Course be consisdered great if it DOESN'T takes 4 or 5 rounds to understand it?" 

I think I see where TD is going here but there seems to be a mixing of whether the course Features or its Strategies are immediately obvious.  If the Features are all obvious, ergo, shouldn't the Strategy?  But if they are not, then the Strategy isn't either.

Or can you have a course where, even tho the features are apparent, the Best strategy isn't?  And it takes several go-rounds to ascertain what the best strategy is?  I think this is what the Talking Stick North reference was to - sure there are big fairways out there but you need to find the right spots - just being "in the fairway" isn't the end-all.  Sure, we can can manufacture obfracation by routing around hillocks or leaving(producing) them in the fairways, to hide what comes after ("oh, there's more room out there than it appears")

Perhaps the problem we have in trying to assess the qualities of the ordained Great Courses is that, even if we are fortunate to be able to play them - and enough of them so comparisons can be made, we typically don't get to play them multiple times and hence must render our judgements based on limited or singular exposure.  This is probably more true for those on this site, as GCA people seem to be golf explorers, always looking for that next great experience.  For example, if an American goes 3 times to GB&I, how many repeat plays will he get in?  Or will he try to knock of as many Bucket List courses as possible.  My guess is the bucket list wins more times than not.