When does variety ...

[Adam Clayman]

... turn into multiple personality disorder?

I've played a couple of recent courses that had me feeling they had multiple personalities.

A couple could be the result of either attracting (or trying to attract) a professional tournament, or, at the behest of the professional association wanting to toughen up the venue.

Either way, it had me wondering when  is too much variety a bad thing. Then maybe again, maybe it isn't the amount of variety, but in how it's presented.

For those who must know, it was The Lake course at The O club and at TOC on Kiawah.

[Mac Plumart]

I wonder if multiple personality disorder most likely result from multiple architects/greens committees/PGA Tour gurus getting their hands on a course after the original has been laid out and built.  I am thinking Inverness, specifically. 

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Before answering -- can you provide some depth to what you saw / didn't see with TOC at Kiawah ?

[Lou_Duran]

Adam,

Hardly ever in my book, and the two you cite- Lake being a personal favorite while Ocean has my respect if not affection- offer considerable variety, but are better known for their level of difficulty (in the case of Lake, among the longest, most difficult short courses on the planet).  The antithesis of variety is Firestone South, the quintessential challenging tournament course.  Presentation and setup, particularly in modern golf design, are critical factors in terms of enjoyment for me; not so much thematic cohesion.

A course that may suffer from your your characterization is Meadowbrook Farms west of Houston which starts with three extremely tight, difficult holes before opening up and becoming more hospitable.  I particularly liked Sand Hills because the multi-option opening hole was a great representation of the rest of the course.  Am I missing your point?

[SL_Solow]

Adam;  Are you talking about variety or significant changes in style at various junctures in the course.  I think variety could be interpreted as differing typeds of holes throughout the course; short vs. long, tight vs. open, straight vs. dogleg all of which can work given that they fit the terrain and routing.  On the other hand I have experienced courses where each hole seems to be an experiment in a different style and nothing holds them together.  Is this the issue?

[Jason Topp]

I don't think it is possible to have too much variety on par 3's and 5's.

On new courses I sometimes find myself wishing for a plain old driver/midiron par 4.  I consider those holes the meat and potatoes of golf.  Many newer courses feature 2-3 short par 4's and 2-3 driver/ fairway wood holes. 

On a course with 10 par 4's, that does not leave much in the way of meat and potatoes.       

[Adam Clayman]

All,
I'm sorry I cannot be more specific on my feelings. But I will try.
 
Shel likely touches on it, with significant changes. I sense my observations were entirely based on visuals
 I can however distinguish between the occasional added bunker(s) i.e. Yeamans Hall has two added bunkers on the outside of the dog leg on a late hole. (15 ? or 16?)

With respect to TOC at Kiawah, I think it was the bunkers that created the feeling I'm referring to. My impression was that Pete Dye's strategic bunkering was somehow augmented, with pits of a more "penal" placement, later in the round, and if I may generalize, more circular in nature.

The Lake course may have been a different animal. I can't put my finger on exactly what it was that made me feel that way, but once again, my impression was that it was trying to be too many different things, all at once. The final par 3 being the case study.

Mac may have hit on a great reason, having too many different cooks in the kitchen, so to speak.

It may or may not be a coincidence that both of these venues are about to hold major events. One listening to the PGA and one the USGA.

I agree with Jason, for the most part that Variety is a great thing. That's why I'm posing the question, if there are situations where a certain type of variety, (bunker looks) may not always work.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Frankly, you lost me on the "penal placement" dimension you reference to TOC at Kiawah. If there's anything at Kiawah amiss -- it's the lack of a ground game dimension as a number of the greens literally mandate an aerial approach. If there is a missing link in terms of variety it would have helped Pete Dye to include this element when bringing to life the course.

Adam, I believe you answered your own question -- your splitting hairs on your own preference for certain visual elements.

[Adam Clayman]

Matt, When was the last time you played there?

[Anthony Gray]

   Good topic.If the course fits the land(Spyglass,Cruden Bay) then variety is less important,but if the land is the same a course needs to have a certain flow.The flow can be disrupted by too much variety and take away from the golf experience.

   Anthony

[Terry Lavin]

Great topic.  I think a golf course must have some measure of internal consistency in order to be considered to be a good or great work.  Last summer, I played Conway Farms, north of Chicago, for the first time in about fifteen years.  In the interim, a combination of miscues seem to have contributed to what once was a nice, naturalist, wetlands and minimalist design to devolve into an inconsistent version of a course that seems to be equal parts resort and artificial parklands course.

I found three examples of huge, revetted bunkers, which was odd, since the rest of the bunkers are boilerplate Fazio.  On the 17th hole, a lovely faux Pac Dunes par 3, an enormous, gnarly beast of a bunker with fescue growing out of the faces was striking, but entirely out of place with the rest of the course.  Then, it was obvious that there's been some interfering with the planting of trees and bushes, mostly to line fairways and "frame" greens.  Horrific.  Finally, the 18th hole has an artificial creek with some boulders that they probably got from Utah and a limestone bridge or two.

Individually, there are a lot of nice holes on this course, but the internal inconsistencies, which some might see as variety, detracted from the whole.