[jeffwarne]

The quote below was made by someone else in describing this architect.
"he didn't believe every shot had to be an event in itself".....

That's an incredibly refreshing statement to me

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff,

I certainly like the qoute very much.

I just wrote this for a person who asked a question about Stanley Thompson today.
"The reason you enjoy playing his courses is because he never set out to beat you – only to entertain you."

So I'll guess Stanley Thompson knowing that is wrong. 

[jeffwarne]

well Ian, it's a bit of a trick question because it was someone else's description.

Certainly the anti "18 signature holes"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure who said it but when a gca starts thinking about creating holes, it is easy to over create, to try to make every shot special or unique.  There is a lot to be said for only a few "signature shots" as well as signature visuals.  Golfers appreciate the occaisonal opportunity to play in a brain dead way.

[jeffwarne]

Not sure who said it but when a gca starts thinking about creating holes, it is easy to over create, to try to make every shot special or unique.  There is a lot to be said for only a few "signature shots" as well as signature visuals.  Golfers appreciate the occaisonal opportunity to play in a brain dead way.

It was Scott Whitley and Richard Finney describing Eddie Hackett from Ran's 2008 interview on the site.

I think somewhere along the way many golfers got very wrapped up in what their course (or the course they were playing) said about them, rather than simply enjoying the course , the game, and the company.
This led the owners of courses to insist that there be no "boring holes",or by extension, no boring shots.

I would argue that a shorter, widish open par 4
(no, not a "driveable" par 4---driving a par 4 once was noteworthy...but I digress)
 with a really cool green (perhaps even tilted, but not nessessarily) , gives more players an opportunity to experience the nuances of such an approach shot to such a green, rather than merely extricating themselves from whatever situation they would face on an overly designed cliche "driveable par 4".

I think the quote is another way of saying that an occasional wayward shot is its' own penalty, and doesn't always have to make the next shot disproportionately difficult.
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost by creating and maintaining hazards that didn't naturally suggest their existence.

[Peter Pallotta]

Nice thread, Jeff.    

As a writer, I've been trying to learn this lesson for many years: I have to leave room for the reader.

That is, I want my words to facilitate a dialogue -- to guide readers in a certain direction (i.e. the narrative) and to see/feel certain things (i.e. the themes), yes, but at the same time to leave the space for them to interact with and fill in the blanks of that narrative and those themes in whatever way they see fit or comes naturally to them.

In other words, ideally I'd like no one to notice me or the craft, but instead to experience the structure/foundation I've established and to build their own houses upon it.

[Ian Andrew]

I agree with Peter, this is a very interesting thread.

I find in my little area of the golf design business, I spend more time pulling things away things than adding new elements.

I have begun working with a pretty cool course north of Toronto called Maple Downs where the terrain was outstanding and the course was pretty open in the beginning. When I presented the first go around of the Master Plan, we reviewed each hole, and a common refrain was to remove the bunkers that were added in the last 25 years to return the original essence of the hole. 

I finished up the entire presentation with a series of questions. Did you notice that half the bunkers are gone? Do you realize that there will only be two fairway bunkers on the course (the land is spectacular and very much part of the play)? Does this affect any of your thoughts shared during the discussions?

The first comment was brilliant and ended the discussion wonderfully, “It definitely would have if you mentioned this before seeing the individual holes and I would have questioned the intent may times to keep the bunker count up. But not once did it strike me, as we reviewed the holes, that a hole was missing something.”

As Jeff Brauer said so well, it’s so easy to add too much because it’s easy to justify in our minds and most people thrive on visual and strategic reinforcement. But the truth is we need far less than we think. I truly believe the best architects understand that every shot does not need to be addressed visually or strategically to be good. In fact often the brilliance is to know when to provide relief or contrast.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - terrific example.

I'm not going to explain this well, but I'll try:

I think the artist-craftsman (writer, designer, painter, musician etc) who strives to do the best work possible needs to learn that the results (what people experience while reading a great book or playing a great course, and then how they analyze and critique that experience later on) is not a blueprint or guideline for how he should write or design his own book or course. That it becauses the reader or the golfer who reads/plays something great will have had an experience and drawn out from that experience a whole lot more than what the writer or designer had consciouly/intentionally put into the work; and so, if one tries in his own work to emulate the results of past great work, he ends up not with the same result but actually with something completely different, with something that leaves no room for readers or golfers to experience this particular work or draw a lot more out of it -- with something that prescribes ('pre - describes') what the reader or golfer will/should experience. True - some readers and golfers (maybe most) actually like that, they like the familiar and derivative. But great work it is not.

Peter

PS - actually, you and Jeff said it better and more succinctly, i.e. "it is easy to add to much".  What I wanted to point out is the irony -- if a designer is lazy and doesn't care, he probably won't add too much (but the work won't ever be great); it is only the designer who is really trying to do great work that is tempted to add too much (and that is often the very thing that causes him not to achieve his goal)

[Sean_A]

The quote below was made by someone else in describing this architect.
"he didn't believe every shot had to be an event in itself".....

That's an incredibly refreshing statement to me

Jeff

That sounds right up my alley.  I think a lot of people think they want this sort of design, but I am not convinced that is the case when one sees their reaction to eye candy.  Architecture is a tough racket and folks have to distinguish their work somehow.  While I believe it possible to do this without the in your face style that seems to have prevailed these past several decades, it would seem the folks in power are not convinced. 

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

Two examples spring to mind on this.

I watched a program on Eric Clapton many years ago where another guitarist said it’s not what he can play, but the mastery of the space between that sets him completely apart from the rest of us.

The other and more personal:

My father helped me with my first go around with water colours when I was in school (which reminds me it’s time to try again this winter). I had one image that he had me paint over and over to learn. The first five times he watched and said you’re painting too much. I remember out of frustration splashing some quick rudimentary colour on the painting and stopping more out of confusion than anything else. He said good now you know how much time to spend. I was a little taken aback. The next trick is figuring out how to add one or two more strokes in that same period to bring something particular to my attention. I looked at a painting we were talking about and it was much more white than paint and it was the first time that there was something worth looking at. Dad mentioned that since there were things weren’t finished it was now open to interpretation.

I think I get your message that all great art leaves room for personal interpretation.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - yes, I think so...but I'd also say we have to remember that "the personal interpretation is not the great work itself".  Forgetting or not realizing that is exactly where someone like me has gotten hung up -- I have read great work (e.g. King Lear, Moby Dick, The Waste Land) and felt what I felt and thought what I thought and then tried to write something myself that would make future readers think and feel as well....forgetting that the 'result' that Shakespeare and Dickens and Eliot caused in me was not the work itself but a reaction to that work.  If I want to get the same reaction, I have to dig deeper into (and understand) how those writers were writing, dig deeper into the underlying craft and ethos that was manifested in the work/result. Anyway - excuse the theorizing on my part; you have nothing to learn from me -- gents like you and Jeff B are actually DOING it...I'm just rambling about it.

Peter   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

We are on the same page, I think.

If the essence of the game is hit it, find it, hit it again, architecture is a mere embellishment, no?  It is possible that it takes away from the essence of the game as much as adds to it.

In art, isn't it always "one brush stroke too many" that ruins most paintings?  From my sketching days in college, I can recall many of my own drawings ruined by just one extra line.  It is amazing how fast you can go from good to crap.....

[jeffwarne]

Thanks guys for the input.

I edited to give Ran due credit as the quote was taken from one of his great interviews on the site.

I actually was in the process of editing the words "Merion" into the title of the thread (seriously) after seeing limited responses, but my login timed out.
I see a lot of beard pulling going on now-Thanks again.

Not sure Hackett would've been doing much beard pulling, I just think he would've been considering the time, effort, and expense of adding features that produced diminishing returns, and limited the fun ,pace, and enjoyment of the course.
 Or conversely, wouldn't have given them much thought at all.

i wonder if Waterville has succumbed to such a fate with the Fazio redo. (I haven't played it since the early 90's)

[Jim_Kennedy]

"He was professional at Portmarnock in the 1930s, and played there daily into his 80s, and deeply appreciated the spaciousness and the routing of that classic links (Portrush was another favourite), and all of his links courses entail a constant shifting of direction. Narrow fairways and rigidly prescribed angles of attack were not his thing. He didn’t believe every shot had to be an event in itself, and knew from constant experience that on links courses a shifting wind can make the most painstakingly placed bunker an irrelevance, and the easiest hole can become a monster. He felt a good hole should play in an interesting manner from any distance and was adept at using natural undulations to protect his green sites."

I wonder if it's much easier to follow that ideal when working in dunesland, or over interesting inland terrain.

".....Hackett wouldn’t go out of his way to introduce novel strategic elements if the terrain did not offer something up, and so his parkland layouts certainly lack the flair of his links courses. And even on his links courses there are sometimes holes farther inland that are relatively bland."

Where is the 'boring' line drawn, or perhaps it's under-drawn?

[Ken Moum]

I agree with Peter, this is a very interesting thread.

I find in my little area of the golf design business, I spend more time pulling things away things than adding new elements.

I like this one:

In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything left to add but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[JC Urbina]

Ian,

Studying Stanley Thompson,  did you ever think he over did anything when laying out his golf holes.

The reason I ask is it seems to me that Thompson worked in some very spectacular landscapes and I believe he may have learned that sometimes what he added to the golf hole couldn't match what the surrounding beauty provided.  Capilano I believe may have been one of the golf courses that  quote surely belongs to.

Not to long ago I toured a golf course that Ran  may have said that line.

"he didn't believe every shot had to be an event in itself"

  He could also have said -  Just let the surroundings be the enjoyment of the day.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

I love your description of plans for Maple Downs. Awesome.

I, too, find that I'm taking more away than adding in my consulting work. It's gratifying, in many ways, when you effectively explain how superfluous features should be eliminated without affect on the look and playing interest of a hole, or course, isn't it. Always brings up a brilliant quote from Tom Simpson, which is etched in my mind: "The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake, rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards."

If Mr. Simpson was around today, he'd likely sue me considering how many times I've used this quote 

This also reminds me of building Blackhawk with Whitman, almost a decade ago now (which is unbelievable). Knowing we were building some pretty cool holes, it wasn't until well into construction that I consciously thought about the first "driving area" bunker showing up at the 11th hole! (There have been a couple added on the front nine since... did they improve those holes? Not markedly.)

[Tim Nugent]

When is Less - More and  when is Less - well,  just Less?

Personally, I am more concerned with the rhythm of holes/shots than individual holes/shots.  One of my father's comtemporaries explained to me early on the a golf course should build like a symphony, hitting the golfer with everything from the getgo throughout not only will wear him out, but it will lose it's value due to sensory overload. 

I like Ian's use of the concept of Space.  When studying building architecture, I was influenced by FLW's use of space. Where he would make one space a bit to small just to add drama to the next space, which is big, bold and dramatic.  I try to impliment this physical concept in my designs.  If every fairway is narrow, it gets tiresome, just as if everyone is wide, it gets lost on the player.  Taken a step further, one can ascribe it to the mental side of the game.  There needs to be an ebb and flow to the game, no player wants a manic design that just mentally wears them out.  There needs to be Space between demanding shots or the enjoyment level deminishes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I find myself asking that a lot.  What do I gain if I add "X"?  Usually the answer is not enough to matter.

I was once amazed while visiting a super friend at a yet to open signature course.  The gca had it in his contract that his shapers could come back within a year after finish to tweak things to perfection.  While I was there, they were adding a series of little mounds between tees and property lines (housing course). I found myself asking what these out of play features could add?  (later, I found out it was pissed off homeowners and numerous drainage problems, but I digress)

At another sig course, under the same circumstances, the gca had the contractors dig a big grass bunker beside a tee, which turned out to be in solid rock, and in a native area.  After the grass grew no one remembered or noticed that the area had more dip in it than the surrounding contours and was not really any kind of play or visual feature.

I think to whatever degree the "ornamentation" of golf courses was excessive, it has to be much less now.

[Carl Rogers]

Item no. 1:
A very good series of short essays on the general topic of visual literacy is the first chapters of a book, Dimensions, by the late buidling architect Charles Moore.

Item No. 2: How does the TOC fit into or contrast this thread?  Does age make a form that looks like it belongs there because it has always been there?

[Ian Andrew]

 

Studying Stanley Thompson, did you ever think he over did anything when laying out his golf holes.

Jim, I’m sincerely sorry about the delay, but it took this long to be able to figure out how to answer your question.

Example 1

On one hand it seems that all routing plans began with pencil sketch corridors. I got to see the Banff’s two weeks ago (and have seen quite a few others) and only the most important features show up, not for design reasons but as points of reference.

I got a chance to see a progression from start to finish at the University of Guelph archives. They just received a massive collection of drawings from 1929. In one case they have his trace plan routing (which would have been done over the aerial, the initial layout done on vellum, the revise layout again on vellum and the eventual final linen plan of the proposed project. Each time he added more to the drawing.

The plans I looked at often had very little on certain holes.

Example 2

My initial reaction was an immediate yes, because I think Thompson was brilliant of knowing when to step back. The best example I can offer is the 11th at Highlands Links There is no question that the 11th at Highland Golf Links in Nova Scotia is intended as a breather hole. The first 10 holes at Highland run up and down the landscape like an out of control roller coaster slicing wildly through rolling wooded terrain. The 11th completely contrasts , built on the flat valley bottom almost like the high flat section on the roller coaster ride that sets you up for the next big drop.

The hole was designed as medium length par four – bunkered only for alignment – its fairway the widest on the course with an unusually flat and wide-open green. The 11th is a chance to catch your breath, hopefully make a par, and prepare for the next dizzying run of holes over Highland's rumpled terrain. More importantly it offers the best view of the surrounding mountains on the course. Thompson let the player relax and enjoy the views of this magnificent hidden valley, giving them time to savor this special place.


Example 3

Then I began to think about Banff Springs and that’s where my confusion began on how to answer you.
 
At Banff, Thompson recognized that the scenery was going to dominant the golf course. He knew the scale of the Bow Valley was easily going to overwhelm his golf work. He widened the corridors of his holes with additional clearing to make them feel big enough to match the scale of the surroundings. He also knew this technique would draw more of the mountains into the backdrop of his holes.

But he wasn’t going to take a back seat. He recognized that the wider corridors needed to be addressed architecturally and he filled the void with large and expansive bunker complexes designed to fill the canvas. He further filled the corridor by creating exaggerated horizontal swings in the fairway which emphasized the bunkers and further filled the enormous space.
 
Thompson, inspired by the mountains and valleys around him began to build some of the most elaborate mounding and bunkers the game would ever see.  He introduced elaborate capes, bays and islands which not only introduced some human scale but more importantly drew the eye back to his golf course.

I think the bunkering at Banff was intentionally designed to compete evenly with the mountain setting and focus the golfer back on the course. I find this a clear contrast to the restrained approach at Highlands Links and Capilano.
That’s an answer but without a conclusion and now you know why I struggled.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian,

Thanks for your description of Thompson's process above.

One of the reasons I don't like drawing course plans on paper is that it is too easy to start embellishing too much ... There is so much temptation to fill a blank space, much the same as club landscape committees fill up all the open spaces between holes until the course is dark and unforgiving.  The plan thing is EVEN WORSE when you get to grading plans and 3-D, as sometimes I believe features are added only because the contour lines looked interesting drawn on the paper!

At least, when you are out building a course in the field, you understand that it takes time and money to add more features or move them around.  Unfortunately, none of the guys out there are afraid of that, so it doesn't entirely solve the problem.

You didn't mention clients but they certainly play a role in this, too.  For the last bit of Pacific Dunes I was really dragging my heels a bit with Mike K.  He knew we were building something special and did not want it to fall short at the finish line; I was more conscious of leaving the golfers enough energy to reach the 19th hole without being totally exhausted.

[JC Urbina]

Ian,

 You explored a lot of avenues of thought for me to consume.  Pencil sketches laid the ground work for his theories.  I wonder how many times he abandoned his sketches.  It seems like he didn't let his ego overcome the golf course.   

I think I need to make a field trip to Banff and Highlands Links.

I am trying to compare what you said about Thompson and the three golf courses you discussed  and what Mackenzie did with Cypress Point. 


 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()