[Cristian]

"Oil and water don't mix"

"Variety is the spice of life"

Both expressions are very much applicable to golf courses. Yet obviously they bite each other as well; endless Variety and a consistent recognisable design style may bite each other in the long run.

So where do we choose Variety over Style consistency, and in which area's is it the other way around? Where do we prefer to recognise a certain look over being surprised by yet another glimpse of creativity by the architect?

Obviously the areas where a course can make its mark of style have to be carefully chosen, as are the area's where the needs to vary its appearance and surprise the player?

So in which area's do you like a course to show variety or consistency?

Terrain? (e.g 1 and 18 vs 2-17 on Bandon Trails)
Green Undulations?
Green size?
Green surrounds?
Bunker style?
Bunkering?
Width?
other area's....?

I for one prefer courses with a recognisable bunker style (think Mackenzie courses) rather than a mix (think Castlestuart). But other than that I do not mind variety in pretty much every other department.

Let me know your preferences as well and please give examples!

[Mike Bowline]

This is an interesting topic and I am surprised it has not gotten much response.

Imho, some styles within a single 18-hole course are something that should remain consistent:  bunker style, tee box style, green surrounds to name a few obvious ones. THese are more created by the designer as the course is built and regardless of terrain, they can be made fairly consistent hole-to-hole.

However, features that are dictated by the terrain I believe should be transparent to the terrain: fairway roll and undulation, green sites, green surrounds, FW width. Even if the design is not a minimalist design, manufactured fetures can  remain consistent across 18 holes.

Let the architect display his creativity within those definitions and the course will "flow". Abrupt changes in style can lead to a stop/start feel as one plays the course.

The chance for a designer to flex his "multi-styl" muscles can occur on different courses, but should not occur on one single course IMHO.

There, now that will get people talking.....

[Mac Plumart]

I also agree this is an interesting topic, as was the one about bunker and green interaction...but both seem to get little interest.  I don't know why...oh well.

I love variety within reason.  I agree with Mike that the features of a course need to be in-line with the terrain.  And, therefore, the variety I like has to be in-line with that terrain as well.

I think Sand Hills really captures this ideal.

Here is a shot of a random natural blow out off in the distance at Sand Hills...




And here is the tee shot on the 4th hole...



The terrain off in the distance and the golf course seem to seemlessly flow together.  I like that.

I like to get the same feel on bunkering and greens, but I don't want the same bunkers and greens over and over.  To use C&C again as an example, Chechessee Creek has all of their greens slope back to front, 17 of the 18 slope in a similar manner, and I think it is 14 of the 18 are about 30 yards deep by 20 yards wide.  I loved this courses feel and routing, but his lack of variety related to the greens killed it for me.

As to which bunker style I like...I think it, once again, is determined by the natural environment.  Here is, yet again, another C&C course...Cuscowilla.  It is in Georgia...Georgia has red clay.  Give me reddish looking bunker sand.



I don't like to see that brilliant white sand in areas where it shouldn't be.  Imagine the above bunkers with that white sand.  It would be out of place in my mind.

So, I guess to address the question...I like variety in a manner that is consistent with the natural environment in every aspect of the course.

[Peter Pallotta]

You can have, it seems to me, much variety within a consistent framework. In fact, I think this is (and is invariably) true for any artist worthy of the name. Shakespeare will have moments of tenderness, violence, humour in one of his plays (variety), but no one is ever going to mistake his framework with that of Neil Simon.  And Martin Scorcese will have poetry and ugliness mixed together, but not in the way Nora Ephron would.  William Flynn may have variety in his work, but it's not CBM's variety, and Colt is never RTJ. 

If there is much variety but no discernable framework of consistency, there you have the work of a hack.

Peter   

[Will Smith]

Mac,

I think your criticism of Chechesse is a little inaccurate. Yes, all the greens are of the push-up variety, but they are extremely varied. This is not readily apparent on one first or second visit to the course, unless one has an very good eye for detail.

Coore & Crenshaw use a number of techniques to riff on a similar theme

Size -  small: 1, 4, 10, 12, 13, 17 - large: 2, 6, 9, 11, 16
Degree of false front - Large: 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18 Small: 3, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16
Tilt- Right: 2, 8, 10, 16 - Left, 1, 4, 11, 13, 17

Combine all of that with some decent sized internal contour and you have great variety in the greens. It is one of the reasons that Chcehessee is so much fun to play over and over and part of the reason that the easiest time around is the first- before you realize how much nuance there is in each green and how many tough spots there are to get up and down from.

All of that being said, I would have liked to see one green run away from the player. Maybe the sixth? Although that might have ruined the overall continuity of the course. I like to view the CCC greens like a great jazz musician playing the same six or seven notes in completely different ways.

[Mac Plumart]

Okay Will, I accept your offer to be your guest and play Chechessee Creek again and see what I messed up regarding green assessment!!!   

Will, I think you are correct.  The internal countours of the greens where in fact different...maybe too subtely so for me to assess that particular aspect of them in my one play. 

But I was simply yearning for a Redan green, punchbowl, flat green, sunken green, ANYTHING.  You know what I am saying?

Really the "feel" of that course was off the charts amazing, but darn it...give something more regarding the greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

Your illustration of the bunkering at Sand Hills is interesting, because my crew always drew the opposite conclusion that you did, that it was unnatural looking to have ten bunkers all in the vicinity of a hole, when there was rarely one out between the holes.  It's understandable ... at some point, opening up blowouts in the Sand Hills can come back to bite you in the butt.  But we always figured that either we should have fewer bunkers between the holes, or more bunkers out in the between areas.

[Mac Plumart]

Well, darn it...my wife is at a conference, I've got the kids, and we are about to leave the house for some family fun, but both Will and Tom have hooked me and I can't seem to pull away from this darn computer screen!!!!  

Will...I remember playing East Lake the first few times.  I didn't see what the fuss was about, so began to study Donald Ross as I understood at that time that Rees Jones tried to restore Donald Ross' original design concepts to East Lake.  I stumbled across this quote from Ian Andrew about Ross' work, "Others have called his work dull and suggested that most of the holes look quite similar. The line between subtle and dull is so close that one person's boring is another person’s genius".    Maybe this is applicabe at Chechessee Creek.  At this point I can't say.  But here is a link to their site.  If you click on each hole and look at the diagrams of the greens, I think you can see where I could derive my initial conclusion from.  But is this the line that Ian talks about dividing subtle and dull and brilliant.  Maybe.  http://www.chechesseecreekclub.com/golfcourse.shtml

Tom...now your comments are interesting to me.  Okay, work with me here and educate as neccessary (any patience is appreciated  )  The "look" of the bunkers on 4 look like the natural blowouts in the area...to me.  That is what caught my eye about these bunkers and many others on the course.  I don't think you are saying that observation is incorrect, but maybe I am wrong on that one.  I think you are saying that given the relatively few amount of natural blowouts per square foot in the Sand Hills region that having that many bunkers on a single hole is too many and makes the course look unnatural.  Is that what you are saying?  

I'll assume that answer is "yes" and move on to Ballyneal.  The only course of your that I have played to date.  Trying to recall the holes and bunkering and greensites in my mind.  I think you may have used fewer bunkers, but I can't say that with 100% certainty as hole #3 seems to have been heavily bunkered...maybe a few more.  But Ballyneal seemed to be routed to incredibly natural looking green sites, the fairways flowed seemlessly into the greens, and the bunkering did look incredibly natural.  

Back to Sand Hills...17 is often photographed.  And the greensite looked very natural.  But to your point, do the bunker look like they would be naturally occuring?  They look like natural blowouts, but that many in that tight of an area?  I don't know.



Incredible food for thought, all of you guys.

I've got to run.  But, of course, I'll be back...as I am quite sure I am a Golf Course Architecture addict.  HELP!!!!

[Carl Rogers]

I would look a this issue as Theme and Variation.

The only good course I know is Riverfront and I can basically count the following basic broad green complex themes:
1. back to front (holes 5,9,12)
2. front to back (holes 2,3,8,14)
3. punchbowl (holes 6,7)
4. multi-zone with slopes everywhere (4*,11,13,16*,18*)
5. slope to side (15)
6. ridge dissecting combining categories 1 & 2 (1,17)
7. minature subtle side punchbowl biarritz (10)
*18 has the most combination of themes, it even has a smaller punch bowl exitting to the side
*16 has a tiny punchbowl exitting to the side
*4 could placed in categories 5 or 6
All of the greens have at some level, sub-variations and counter themes within them.

This isn't confusing, it is interesting, which is why I do not get tired of playing there.

The bunkering is a combination of grassed faced and flashed face.  The flashed is used more when there are slopes that TD and team want to emphasize slopes.  The grassed is used when they want to hide or receed.

[Will Smith]

Mac,

That's the problem with just looking at green depth and width numbers with not comparing them to what is in the ground. The false fronts and rolled edges, make some of the greens much smaller than the yardage book. The 12th is a great example. It says it is 22 yards deep, but plays more like 17 or 18 at most. 16 on the other hand is 46 yards deep. That is variety in my book.

- Will

[Mac Plumart]

Will...

I am not neccessarily disagreeing with you, but in regards to your last post; I didn't look at the diagrams to fully derive my opinion.  I played the course and after the fourth hole, I felt like I played the same green 4 times over.  This deja vu feeling continued again and again with 1 exception.  AFTER the round was when I went to the diagram and, indeed, the greens are VERY similiar.

However, I am sure you are correct in the subtle differences.  Hence the reason for the wording in my last post.

[Will Smith]

Mac,

I think that is the nature of push-up greens. There is nothing to tie into so there is little differentiate greens sites other than what is going on in the green and its immediate surrounds.

The first four are actually quite varied:

1- small and very raised
2- large and severely tilted left to right with the back half running to the back corner
3- medium slightly raised with a crown that sheds to both sides
4- small and narrow, medium elevation peeling off the left side

I think your point is why it is so hard to build a great low-profile course.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom...now your comments are interesting to me.  Okay, work with me here and educate as neccessary (any patience is appreciated  )  The "look" of the bunkers on 4 look like the natural blowouts in the area...to me.  That is what caught my eye about these bunkers and many others on the course.  I don't think you are saying that observation is incorrect, but maybe I am wrong on that one.  I think you are saying that given the relatively few amount of natural blowouts per square foot in the Sand Hills region that having that many bunkers on a single hole is too many and makes the course look unnatural.  Is that what you are saying?  

I'll assume that answer is "yes" and move on to Ballyneal.  The only course of your that I have played to date.  Trying to recall the holes and bunkering and greensites in my mind.  I think you may have used fewer bunkers, but I can't say that with 100% certainty as hole #3 seems to have been heavily bunkered...maybe a few more.  But Ballyneal seemed to be routed to incredibly natural looking green sites, the fairways flowed seemlessly into the greens, and the bunkering did look incredibly natural.  

Back to Sand Hills...17 is often photographed.  And the greensite looked very natural.  But to your point, do the bunker look like they would be naturally occuring?  They look like natural blowouts, but that many in that tight of an area?  I don't know.



Incredible food for thought, all of you guys.

I've got to run.  But, of course, I'll be back...as I am quite sure I am a Golf Course Architecture addict.  HELP!!!!

Mac:

Yes, we're on the same page regarding #4 at Sand Hills.  The bunkers themselves fit in, but the concentration of them stands out, as well as the visual composition of them.

Your mention of #3 at Ballyneal is a good one.  There are a lot of bunkers there in a relatively small space.

There were five holes on the front nine at Ballyneal which I gave to one of our associates or interns to try and design, with the caveat that I'd only keep what I liked.  I gave #3 to Bruce Hepner, but he passed it on to Rupert ... it was Rupert's idea to build all the bunkers on that hole.  He actually suggested a couple way back near the tee, which helps to make it blend in.

So, I never really thought of this at the time, but all the bunkers there work so well visually because it is a short hole and you can't see over the ridge at the back of the green; you don't see how unnatural that concentration of sand is.

[Mac Plumart]

Will and Tom...thanks.  Great stuff.  I learned a lot on that slight threadjack.

Cristian...apologies.  But to get things back on track, I prefer variety in all aspects of a golf courses as long as it is consistent with the natural environment of the course.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Cristian - I think you nailed it in your last sentence. I think what most often is forgotten in this conversation about variety v consistency is that variety in design is desired, but consistency in construction is mandatory.

[Cristian]

So far most people advocate variety, as long as it ties in with the natural environment; however I feel that is only part of the deal.

Mac: I like your Cuscowilla - Georgia example, yet I bet you would not want to change the bunker sand at Augusta to red coloured sand, now would you?  

Tom: Your observation about the natural frequence of blowout bunkers in a certain area as a leading factor for determining no.'s of bunker on a specific hole is also logical, yet courses with bunkers are being built in all sorts of area's where natural bunkers do not even occur naturally at all.

I think the architect has perhaps more freedom than we think; we tend to call good design 'laid out on the land',  'greens were found' etc etc, but I am beginning to feel that good design looks like it's just laid out and naturally fitting, even if it actually wasn't. I feel players like themes in a round; being presented with challenges and being given a second chance to ie bite off the corner on a tee shot, chip from a collection area, putt from the other level on a green etc etc. Perhaps this theming is recognisable to players, and therefore seems 'natural'. Maybe in part this explains the success of a course like Old Macdonald even though the designers were 'restricted' heavily within a certain style bandwith, when applying their creativity over the terrain. In fact all of the world's top courses seem easy to recognise even if you see a picture of a certain hole for the first time, it would not be that difficult to identify it is from for instance TOC CP, PV or ANGC.

Can a course really work without an architect choosing some sort of theme to take the golfer through the round? Do we recognise these themes in courses?

[Mac Plumart]

I remained stunned that this thread isn't getting more traction, but what can you do.

Tom...

I've been thinking about your comments related to hole #3 all day.  To be specific, this quote:

"I never really thought of this at the time, but all the bunkers there work so well visually because it is a short hole and you can't see over the ridge at the back of the green; you don't see how unnatural that concentration of sand is."

For reference, here is a picture of that hole I cut and pasted from Kyle's Ballyneal thread...



So, 99.99% of us golfers are looking at the incredible bunkering on this hole...that amazing green...the ramifications of being long or short...and the like.  While you, in addition to those thoughts, are looking out in the horizon on all sides and thinking/making sure all the golf shot value stuff makes sense in addition to how it blends seemlessly in with the environment (whether that environment is close at hand or off in the distance)?

Random questions...

Is this the kind of stuff you are thinking about while other designers are saying you should be penalized for slow play?

Would you sacrifice a natural looking hole for a hole that requires an incredible thrilling shot?  Or vice-versa.

It seems to me your style is akin to Alister Mackenzie's (if I had to pick an ODG to compare you style to)?  I am high on crack on that one, is that offensive, or is that a reasonable assumption?

Also, here is a shot of 7...



Previous to this thread, I really only noticed how the green fit really nicely into that niche/hallow/E area between the bunkers.  But now I am noticing how when you look out into the horizon it all fits perfectly into the setting (as far in the distance as one would choose to go).  This is no accident, correct?

[Colin Macqueen]

Cristian,

Nice thread.  I agree with Mike when he says "The chance for a designer to flex his "multi-styl" muscles can occur on different courses, but should not occur on one single course".  I have not played nearly as many courses as those contributing but have yet to play a course where I got the feeling that one hole differed markedly in style from the next within the eighteen. I would imagine that the basic terrain that the course is set in would dictate the style that permeates that particular course.

Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

Tom...

I've been thinking about your comments related to hole #3 all day.  To be specific, this quote:

"I never really thought of this at the time, but all the bunkers there work so well visually because it is a short hole and you can't see over the ridge at the back of the green; you don't see how unnatural that concentration of sand is."

For reference, here is a picture of that hole I cut and pasted from Kyle's Ballyneal thread...



So, 99.99% of us golfers are looking at the incredible bunkering on this hole...that amazing green...the ramifications of being long or short...and the like.  While you, in addition to those thoughts, are looking out in the horizon on all sides and thinking/making sure all the golf shot value stuff makes sense in addition to how it blends seemlessly in with the environment (whether that environment is close at hand or off in the distance)?

Random questions...

Is this the kind of stuff you are thinking about while other designers are saying you should be penalized for slow play?

Would you sacrifice a natural looking hole for a hole that requires an incredible thrilling shot?  Or vice-versa.

It seems to me your style is akin to Alister Mackenzie's (if I had to pick an ODG to compare you style to)?  I am high on crack on that one, is that offensive, or is that a reasonable assumption?

Also, here is a shot of 7...



Previous to this thread, I really only noticed how the green fit really nicely into that niche/hallow/E area between the bunkers.  But now I am noticing how when you look out into the horizon it all fits perfectly into the setting (as far in the distance as one would choose to go).  This is no accident, correct?

Mac:

You are giving me a bit too much credit; I said right in the quote you cited that I didn't think of that at the time, it just occurs to me now that's why it works well.  But, absolutely, we are thinking about what fits visually and what doesn't the entire time we are building a course.  My associates have way more time on site to do that than I do, so I don't even have to think about it very much -- they seldom make aesthetic mistakes, so I can spend more time thinking about the playability of the holes.  But we do think about all the visual stuff you cited, and talk about it amongst ourselves, and remind each other if we see something that could spoil the picture.

For example, in the photo of #7 at Ballyneal, the key to me coming up with building the green like that was the grassing line on the left of the green.  The green site was just a narrow slot with rough on both banks, and I did NOT like the idea of rough hanging down the banks on both sides, where a ball would get caught up and give you a severe downhill chip.  So, out of nowhere, it occurred to me to grass the left-hand side like fairway all the way up and over that contour.  Only then did I see that slope as a banked area of turf, and the idea of using it for a boomerang green popped into my head -- which let us build the right-hand bunker and eliminate the grassing line on the right, too.

Would I sacrifice a natural looking hole for a hole that provides a thrilling shot?  Not usually, but occasionally.  The par-3 seventh hole on our new course in Florida isn't very natural-looking, which is probably why Brian Schneider suggested it and not me.  [That, or because it is a bit of a detour in the routing, which is another thing I try to avoid.]  But it will make great use of a really dramatic feature that otherwise would have gone to waste, and there wasn't another place to put the hole that was nearly as good, so I decided Brian was right. 

Now we've just got to figure out a way to get you from the tee to the green without being attacked by a gator!

[Cristian]

Tom...

I've been thinking about your comments related to hole #3 all day.  To be specific, this quote:

"I never really thought of this at the time, but all the bunkers there work so well visually because it is a short hole and you can't see over the ridge at the back of the green; you don't see how unnatural that concentration of sand is."

For reference, here is a picture of that hole I cut and pasted from Kyle's Ballyneal thread...



So, 99.99% of us golfers are looking at the incredible bunkering on this hole...that amazing green...the ramifications of being long or short...and the like.  While you, in addition to those thoughts, are looking out in the horizon on all sides and thinking/making sure all the golf shot value stuff makes sense in addition to how it blends seemlessly in with the environment (whether that environment is close at hand or off in the distance)?

Random questions...

Is this the kind of stuff you are thinking about while other designers are saying you should be penalized for slow play?

Would you sacrifice a natural looking hole for a hole that requires an incredible thrilling shot?  Or vice-versa.

It seems to me your style is akin to Alister Mackenzie's (if I had to pick an ODG to compare you style to)?  I am high on crack on that one, is that offensive, or is that a reasonable assumption?

Also, here is a shot of 7...



Previous to this thread, I really only noticed how the green fit really nicely into that niche/hallow/E area between the bunkers.  But now I am noticing how when you look out into the horizon it all fits perfectly into the setting (as far in the distance as one would choose to go).  This is no accident, correct?

Mac:

You are giving me a bit too much credit; I said right in the quote you cited that I didn't think of that at the time, it just occurs to me now that's why it works well.  But, absolutely, we are thinking about what fits visually and what doesn't the entire time we are building a course.  My associates have way more time on site to do that than I do, so I don't even have to think about it very much -- they seldom make aesthetic mistakes, so I can spend more time thinking about the playability of the holes.  But we do think about all the visual stuff you cited, and talk about it amongst ourselves, and remind each other if we see something that could spoil the picture.

For example, in the photo of #7 at Ballyneal, the key to me coming up with building the green like that was the grassing line on the left of the green.  The green site was just a narrow slot with rough on both banks, and I did NOT like the idea of rough hanging down the banks on both sides, where a ball would get caught up and give you a severe downhill chip.


Is that style or more a course-theme at Ballyneal?; choosing the challenge on a course to come from putting (or chipping) it close from closely mown area's, as opposed to tying banks of rough to a perhaps generous green , like some holes at BTrails. Could you imagine building a course with more of that as main theme/challenge, or would you always opt for the Ballyneal-type challenge? What are things you might vary between courses style-wise but not within one course? (I have not played Ballyneal, but I have played the Bandon courses.

 So, out of nowhere, it occurred to me to grass the left-hand side like fairway all the way up and over that contour.  Only then did I see that slope as a banked area of turf, and the idea of using it for a boomerang green popped into my head -- which let us build the right-hand bunker and eliminate the grassing line on the right, too.

Would I sacrifice a natural looking hole for a hole that provides a thrilling shot?  Not usually, but occasionally.  The par-3 seventh hole on our new course in Florida isn't very natural-looking, which is probably why Brian Schneider suggested it and not me.  [That, or because it is a bit of a detour in the routing, which is another thing I try to avoid.]  But it will make great use of a really dramatic feature that otherwise would have gone to waste, and there wasn't another place to put the hole that was nearly as good, so I decided Brian was right.  

Now we've just got to figure out a way to get you from the tee to the green without being attacked by a gator!

[RJ_Daley]

One course that I can think of that has contrasting bunker styles on the same course is Arcadia Bluffs.  There, one finds a number of deep sod wall bunkers, generally within fairway lines and greenside, and more freeflowing style in outlying between holes areas.  I'm not overly critical of this, and I think it is generally a pretty good golf course, aesthetics aside, as you don't play golf on aethetics so much as enjoy a visual experience.

[Mac Plumart]

RJ...I've heard similiar criticisms about Arcadia as well. 

Tom D...Hey, at least you did think of it eventually.     In all seriousness, that statement was quite educational.

Okay...we seem to have some kind of a consensus that variety is a good thing as long as it is consistent with the natural environment. 

Here are some images with random thoughts...

Pinehurst #2...hole 5...looks natural to me...and certainly is a very solid golf hole.



Pinehurst #4...hole 15...hmmm...



NGLA 8 bottle...great hole...I LOVED it...but does that look natural to you guys?



NGLA 15...again...kick a$$ golf hole...natural?



Dye's Kiawah Ocean...to me this is amazing stuff!!



Dye's TPC Sawgrass...this was a really fun hole...but the shape and unnatural look throws me off a little...



And frankly, that last hole looks like Raynor to me...and Raynor's stuff to me rarely looks natural, fun perhaps, but not natural...




In all seriousness, why do we care so much about natural appearance if the golf shots are fun?  Not rhetorical rather a serious question.

Here is a potential answer...

(FYI, same golf hole just different views)





I've got lots of quotes from Behr, Herbert Warren Wind, and Alister Mackenzie...but if you guys have more I'd love to hear it.

[Cristian]

Mac,

Great examples, of great but really not natural looking holes. They llustrate the point I was tryingf to make in my last post wonderfully: I think the holes  look great because they fit a certain style or look. Players apparently like to recognise a course style when playing a golf hole: Does this come with the architect's preferences implicitly or is it the result of a concious effort by an architect to theme a course?


I like this quote by Mike B earlier in this thread:

" The chance for a designer to flex his "multi-styl" muscles can occur on different courses, but should not occur on one single course IMHO."

[Mac Plumart]

Cristian...

Good points.  So, I think you are saying things need to be consistent throughout the course, but not neccessarily in harmony with the natural environment.  Right?

In that light, perhaps Raynor's stuff works because he has those geometric looking hazards consistently throughout a course.  But again to your point, maybe golfers don't want to see a totally natural C&C style bunker on one hole and then a geometric bunker on another.  That would break the consistentancy side of the equation.

To your question...

"Does this come with the architect's preferences implicitly or is it the result of a concious effort by an architect to theme a course?"

I'd love to hear some professionals answers.

Great thread!

[Bryan Icenhower]

I think we often mistakenly use the word "natural" in regards to GCA.  Grew up in PA, live in GA now, I can tell you I've never seen naturally occurring outcroppings of sand - but see plenty of them on a golf course.  Now I agree that architecture has everything to do with bunkers fitting on the land that they are used. Natural - no, fit - yes. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()