Flow and/or Variety

[Richard_Goodale]

Many moons ago on this DG I tried to explain the distinction between a "course" and a "collection of golf holes."  On a recent post, the concept of the critical importance of the "flow" of a golf course was raised.  Many have also raised the importance of variety in routing, often quoting the oldies but goodies of GCA.

My question is, while we can all agree ( I THINK!) that a great golf course has both flow and variety, i.e. that it is both a great course and a collection of great golf holes, what are the (possibly ineffable) skills that allow such greatness to be achieved?

My gut feel is that in the old days, flow was far more important than variety, and because of this emerged "quirk."  Alternatively, today variety is the king, and from that we get:

--300 acre sites
--formulaic routings (par 72, 7200 yards, 100 yards/stroke)
--long walks and the inevitable cart paths
--faux quirk (if any real quirk at all)
--a strong "where's the beef" (or maybe, "where's the quenelles de brochet", or, "I'm still hungry!") feeling on finishing the round.  Even adn most disappointingly on those properties that have both the land and the budget to do both flow and variety.

Any thoughts?

[Jim_Kennedy]

They possessed imaginable pragmatism.

[Lynn Shackelford]

About ten years ago I said to Jay Haas at the L.A. Open, Riviera really is a good course isn't it?  His reply.
"Well there isn't any great stretch or one hole which sticks out, but when you put it all together it works", "all the parts fit."
That kind of flow is important to me.  I can get tired of stretches of into the wind holes, downwind holes, long holes, short holes, holes with water, uphill and downhill.  I need changes, otherwise it is a good walk ruined.  If you have to have some quirk to keep the flow that is fine by me.  
I think the golden age boys paid great attention to this.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

I've often found it ironic that, as the industry strives to achieve "variety", it has slowly been eliminating it from the game.

We've now reached what I call the oximoronic "cookie-cutter variety".  True originality is not understood, and therefore critisized.  So architects strive to get "commercially acceptable variety" that the public will accept.  This is true in all art-forms.

Personnaly, I believe flow is far more important than variety.  Let the golf course flow as naturally as possible, and the truest form of variety will emerge in the long run.  Never, ever try to force variety, or you'll end up with bad flow and, ironically, predictable designs.

[archie struthers]

Rich,


Funny you mention flow as integral to good architecture, or a good course. It was the key to my discussion with Mike DeVries yesterday regarding our favorite pastime.

I worked for almost ten years at Pine Valley, and man does it flow!  You come out of the gate a little tough, as you might imagine if you had never been there. But, its kind of like a fight against a ferocious knockout specialist. If you can survive and keep your wits about you early you just might win the title, or at least have a shot late.

I always thought if one get thru #1-5 without a train wreck, that a player with some talent and heart could feel like they had a chance in from there, and even attack a few of the holes. You can catch your breath on six and seven, hold the rudder again on  eight and nine (particularly left green #9) and then catch some air until you get to #13.

If every hole was like #2 or #5 it would be too much sensory overload, and too hard!!!!  Some semi-famous golf courses suffer from this syndrome, each hole an attempted masterpiece that outdoes the next one.A great golf course is fully integrated, with a dash of this and a peck of that.  Number eleven and twelve at Pine Valley are just perfect, pretty, strategic and a breather that fit perfectly into the puzzle that starts unfolding again at #13.

Flow to me is what sets the greatest courses above the rest, it  just might  separate architects too!  Great post Rich!

[Richard_Goodale]

Archie

It must have been you that recently mentioned the word "flow" that inspired me!  Thanks.  In the thread of a year and a half ago or so where I first remember discussing this concept, was inspired by a quote from Nick Faldo (or, more likely, his ghostwriter) where he talked about the great courses as having a rhythm of "tee to green to tee to green to tee to green.....".  It is this rhythm, this sense of connection, that appeals to me.

[A_Clay_Man]

Most of this thread seems to be devoted to the flow. I would like to ask everyone what they think variety should mean.

I have a hypothetical: At my new home course Pinon Hills there is some confusion(in my mind) as to the routing and whether or not it was originally designed the way it plays today. One of the poorest examples is the fifth tee. All players must head back into the play of the 4th. A downhill par 3. I feel a new teeing ground should be constructed that will improve both the flow and variety. By placing the tee where I recommend, the course would now have an uphill blind tee shot. It does not really have one (so to speak) Will the addition of this variety in any way hurt what is already a great course?

[Tim_Weiman]

Archie:

Regarding Pine Valley and "flow", if you are suggesting that the flow really doesn't start until #6, I agree with you.

I'm cool with #2, but that #5 is terrifying: an absolute disaster waiting to happen!

The fact that #9 doesn't come back to the clubhouse contributes to the "flow", in my opinion.  And, something about the place just fires you up and sharpens your focus.  That also contributes to a feeling of "flow".

[archie s.]

Tim,


I think we agree, if Pine Valley continued to be the rollercoaster #1-#5 are for all eighteen the golf course might be the toughest in the world , but not one of the best!!!!

[Mike_Young]

Rich,
To me flow is both a mental state in the golfers mind and at the same time a physical part of the golf course.  I would describe it as the "whole" in the golf course.  The beauty, enjoyment and overall gratfication that one desires from a round is often not there today due golf cars, housing and routings that are not continuous.  I think that flow is one of those things many of us like about a particular course but can't describe when asked.  I think it was acheived more out of necessity by the old guys.  A green was cut into a hill or placed where you just stepped to the next tee and at the end you were back where you started.
 Designing a routing was much more difficult then . Today you have the ability to skip a difficult section and just drive the golf car several hundred yards to the next tee location.  Designers then might have a blind shot here or there in order to continue the flow and today it would be slammed. To me, lack of flow ,is one of the biggest aesthetic elements missing today.  
I know that I have had projects where I am satisfied with the holes but will never be satisfied with the flow.  It might have been out of my control due to environmentals etc. but never the less it is still missing and I know it.
Mike

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

One of the problems with some of the modern high profile works of today, is their attempt to come up with 18 signature or finsihing holes. They point to the weaknesses of past designs, claiming that those past architects were technically unable to minipulate the land to elimanate those 'weaknesses'. To me many of these ideal courses are exactly what Rich says, they are collections of holes, some very strong holes, but also some very formulmatic or contrived holes that may have little relationship to one another. An example that comes to mind is Muirfield Village, no doubt a very strong course with a great number of individually strong holes, but for me there is something off. Some of those strong holes bare little relationship to one another and in some cases do not even share the same style.

One of the charms of many strong older courses is that they are imperfect and unpredicatabe - just as nature or a given site is imperfect and unpredicatable. I believe when an architect excepts and works with the imperfections of a given site and the course is routed to maximize the sites natural attributes that the result is a course with continuity and course that flows naturally. There is variety, but not the artificial variety that you find on many modern courses, where the variety is forced or reflects some formula for variety.(Some refer to this as quirky)

[Richard_Goodale]

Agree fully, Mike.  That is just what I was trying to say.  It seems to me that one of hte consensuses on this site is that a holistic approach to golf course design, construction, maintenance and overall management is an ideal.  The unanswered question is:

Why can't we build courses that flow theese days, and I'm afraid that both expectations (that every hole be "great"), technology (earthmoving and carts), and litigiousness (perceived need to separate tees and greens) are why we'll never see new courses that flow as well as the old ones, alas.

[Lou Duran]

Tom M,

Not to play your antagonist, but from your many posts it is evident that you apply a much tougher standard to the  modern golf course.   MV is a course that I have played and remember fairly well.  In the context of flow and variety (I think that the two are inseparably intertwined), I would enjoy your detailed analysis of how "something is off", and how the strong holes seem to be unrelated or do not share the same style.  Not knowing where you're coming from here, I would think that stylistic differences within 18 holes would add to the element of variety.

The concept of flow is an interesting one.   For me, it not only has to do with the proximity of tees to greens, but more importantly, how the holes follow each other in terms of variety, shot requirements, and options.  I know that there are a number of great courses with back-to-back par 3s and par 5s.  If the holes themselves are considerably different (e.g. CP's #15-short iron, #16- wood or long iron), then they're fine (though if Fazio would do this sans the Pacific Ocean we would be calling for his head).  Personally, I like par 5s, and some of Devlin/Von Hagge's work (e.g. Crown Colony) where they've designed nines with three 3s, 4s, and 5s has  nice flow and great variety.

I agree with Rich's last post, though the litigation problem can be overcome with sufficient land, limited play, and a developer who places more value on these concepts (flow, variety).  For those who've played Pacific Dunes, how does it rate in terms of flow and variety?  

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Rich, this is a wonderful topic for me. I often use the word balance when describing a course I really like. Balance means variety to me, with all the shots in the bag and types of holes being present in a manner that flows well with the land. I often have to play courses like this several to many times to appreciate all its character.

[George Pazin]

Rich -

What did you think about Applebrook's sense of flow? When we walked it last August it seemed to fit your description. How did it play?

P.S. Please no anthropomorphic comments re: Applebrook - allow me a little flexibility with my choice of words.

[THuckaby2]

George:

I played Applebrook in a group with Rich, and though this topic is a little bit off-track from my usual musings, what the hell, I'll give it a shot.

I thought the "flow" of Applebrook was FABULOUS.  You have a perfect opener - somewhat friendly shortish par 5, then the course gets TOUGH at 2, then a driveable par 4, then brutish... it kinda goes like that... nothing overly painful even on the brutish holes, but they also seemed to me to be bookended by the "fun" or "strategic" holes just at the right times.  Tom Paul or others more familiar with the course may or may not agree, and likely could do this much better than I, going hole by hole... I'm just working from memory of a round that occurred 5 months ago.  But I do remember thinking during the round how cool the "balance" and yes, "flow" was....

It is one hell of a great golf course.

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

George

I only use the "a" word in regard to strategy!

I got a fanstastic sense of flow when I played Applebrook in October.  Far better than any new course I have played in the past year or so, including Pacific Dunes, Stevinson Ranch, Bandon Dunes, HMB Links, Kingsbarns--each of which has a pretty good, but by no means great sense of connectedness.  The 3rd green to 4th tee (I think) was a perfect example of this--the green just melds into the tee and vice versa.  You could easily be on any of the great old links of the British Isles, in terms of the overall look and feel of the routing.  In general you always felt you were playing golf, rather than schlepping around trying to find the next tee, which is very important to me.

[THuckaby2]

Right on, Friend Rich.  Wasn't 3-4 not the ONLY case where a green surround melded directly into the next tee?  Oh yes, Applebrook was the best example I've seen of getting from one green to the next tee with efficiency built anywhere in America in a long time and that's important to me also!

TH

ps - HMB "Ocean" is the new one... they call the Palmer/Duane the "Old" now and that one was called the "Links" before they changed it... stupid, huh?  In any case, which course are you referring to in your comparison?  I'm not gonna disagree re either course compared to Applebrook, just curious.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Lou
I agree proximity between tee and green are not necessary for a course to flow. In my experience there is not golf course that flows better than Cape Breton where you will find walks of 300 to 400 yards between some tees and greens.

For me MV is off due to a combination of wonderful natural features and blatently artifical features. Part of the time the two work well together, other times they do not, and the result is a golf course that is disjointed, overy artificial and a little off.

I was able to see MV prior to construction and during construction, and the site was/is blessed with wonderful natural attributes, a combination of very interesting rolling terrain and a network of natural streams. Instead of relying on those features and creating a design with continiuty, the architect chose to 'enhance' the course with heavy handed man-made features, creating in essence 18 signature holes. I personally believe that all great designs have a certain amount of imperfection, at MV they attempted to errase all imperfection and it effects the flow.

You'll find some wonderful natural holes - unfortunately not enough for my tastes. You are more likely to find holes that exhibit natural features in combination with artificial (some severely artificial). Many of these features are in mind out of place and/or unrelated to the natural features or what was found on the site originally and in many cases unrealted to each other.

For me the best hole on the course is the 15th which takes advantage of the wonderful rolling ground with little interference. The 14th is a wonderful short hole utilizing the natural fall of the ground and an interesting use of a stream - unfortunately the stream is now some kind of hybrid - part stream part narrow pond -- for me its appearance effects the natural flow of the hole and the flow of the course because it is out of character with the both the 13th or 15th. The 2nd and 3rd hole utilize a naturalistic stream, other holes utilize bizzare man-made water features. The 5th utilizes a freakish pond/stream to create an interesting strategy - unfortunately it comes across as totally contrived. It has the appearance of a heavy handed design trying to create something special - but it fails in my mind. And it falls in between two holes - the 4th and 6th - which are more natural and less forced. The 9th utilizes the very appealing gentle slope that natural follows the curve of the dog leg, but then the green is fronted by an artificial pond/stream. The 11th was designed around a lovely natural stream, unforunately the stream's course has been altered half a dozen times and now looks quite odd and unnatural - clearly man-made. Ponds have been created on the 3rd, 6th, 7th(hybrid), 9th(hybrid), 10th, 12th and 14th(hybrid) and they form the major strategic element on most of these holes. I would've preferred that the natural streams and the most interesting attribute of the site, the rolling terrain, be the most utilized features. It would in mind created a design that would have flowed more naturally and easily. Most of the ponds are far too artifical for my tastes and were not necessary in creating interesting strategies. They are reduntant and effect the flow of the golf course.

The bunkering is also a hodge podge and has changed over the years. When the course was first opened the bunkering was of a more coherent nature. Now you have some of the old bunkering - of which the 17th green is the best - and several new and totally different styles. The 16th green has bunkering unlike any other hole - angular with a steep wall of sod. The 12th's new bunkering is of a different character, the 8th has been altered and has no relationship to the holes prior or after. The 10th is a weird hole under any standard, including the bunkering. The 14th sand bunkers/grass bunkers are unlike any other hole. Stylistic differences are a form of variety, but it is not a favorable variety in my mind and adds to the disjointed effect.

How do my standards differ from old to modern designs?

[George Pazin]

I think it was 2nd green/3rd tee that you're thinking of(yikes, more bad grammar).

That's the only one I remember that it literally connected (there may have been others), but the whole course really seemed to flow, & we didn't even walk the holes in order due to time contraints. Most unique course I've seen in that respect.

Pebble seems to have a great flow, though I walked it before #5 was redone.

[Richard_Goodale]

Thanks. George, for the jogging of my memory.  Your post brings up a related issue in my mind.  Pebble does flow very well, and part of this, I speculate, is becuaes there is neither the room nor the need to add significant length to the course, so it flows pretty much the way it was originally designed.  In contrast, see some of the old courses that have tried to stay "competitive" in the Majors game by adding length through building tees backwards from the original line of flow and play--The Old Course, Troon, ANGC, Merion, Shinnecock, Muirfield.  All great courses, but flawed, IMHO, by the fact that to play the "tips" these days you have to schlepp back into the boonies up to 50 yards on many holes.  You end up with more modern and "better" holes, but you lose the sense of connectedness and wholeness.  Better trees, perhaps, but an inferior forest.  And, yes, if you count the rarely played tiger tees, its happening at Dornoch, too...........

[Ed_Baker]

Tom,

Well stated as usual.

It seems to me that your standards,preferences,evaluation criterion, are amazingly consistent from course to course regardless of the date of construction. I base that statement on the volume and content of your posts on GCA.Yes,your standards are high,but from what I have read,they are consistent.

It will be interesting to get the feedback from the GCA group going to Cape Breton in a few months. A walk of several hundred yards from green to tee would suggest anything but flow, I've not played it so I can't offer an opinion.

[Dan Kelly]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

In regard to Faldo/Goodale's tee-to-green-to-tee-to-green-to-tee-to-green-to-tee flow, it seems that green-to-tee flow is the harder to create, at least nowadays -- but is ESSENTIAL to the creation of a "course" that rises above being a collection of golf holes.

Everyone seems to agree that, even in the absence of real-estate considerations, our modern litigiousness is going to keep tees from being very close to greens.

I'm wondering: What's the case law here? Have there already been a bunch of tort actions against golf-course operators brought by golfers who, standing on tees, have been conked by approach shots? Or are we borrowing trouble -- assuming that the way our courts and our juries are moving, they'll eventually get around to punishing golf-course owners based on the proximity of their tees and greens?

[David_Elvins]

As I understand it, Mackenzie designed the back nine at Augusta as the front nine.  Can anyone imagine what it would be like to play holes 11-16 in the first seven holes on the course?  How would he justify doing this with regard to the flow of the course?  Or did he not think about the flow of the course at all?  

As an aside, if the nines were never reversed would we have tuned into the last 40 years of Masters telecasts at 2pm to watch them play the front nine and then had to check on the news that night to see who won?

[Lou Duran]

Tom M.-

I haven't played MV since the late 70s, and the changes you describe apparently don't come through TV that well.  As you know, the golf course is very difficult for most amateurs, particularly on the second shots.  I am not a really big fan of #6 (ackward tee shot, green too hard to hold with mid to long iron), #10 (not much definition), and #13 (just didn't fit my mind's eye).  But I think that the course flows very well and provides considerable variety and options.  I am also less concerned about the aesthetics of bunkering than how they affect play.   The pond on 10 does look artificial, but the rest of the water features look quite natural to me.  I guess pumping the water throughout the course is pretty artificial, but I like moving water (like at Glen Abbey) so it is ok with me.

How are you tougher on modern courses?  I haven't heard the same criticisms from you on Scioto (as I recall the pond there was moved and raised), the creek that became a lake at ANGC's #16, even the lake at OSU looks very artificial.  Perhaps I am wrong, but MV looks very natural to me.  Do you believe that you examine old courses in the same manner as you do the modern?