News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Peter Pallotta

A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« on: September 06, 2011, 09:28:11 PM »
On large and expansive sites, freedom golf (undirected and multi-directional, with room for error and for chance, and option-filled) comes as a gift, as a grace unearned, i.e. the architect can enhance the freedom, but he doesn't need to create it, as it is inherent in and a product of the site itself, ready for unveiling by those with eyes to see and appreciate it and hands that are both willing and skilled. But on small sites, the opposite is true, i.e. this sense of freedom can be/must be manufactured, but it can only be done so with great human thought and effort, and even then the site itself can never truly feel as expansive.  And so it seems to me that when golf first moved inland, in GB&I first of course, but then later in the U.S. with the early inland courses, it proved to be the death-knell (inadvertent/unconscious or not, I don't know) of freedom golf, i.e. the definition, the essence, the very value of freedom golf was lost/forgotten.  And every since then gca, as practiced even by some of the most interesting and informed and enlightened architects past and present, has been a search in the dark, sort of dimly and vaguely, for a way to re-create/capture a semblance of that kind of golf, freedom golf -- a kind of golf/golf course that architects can imagine but can't quite describe/articulate, to themselves let alone anyone one else like a client. (And if were not for The Old Course, even that search itself would have ceased long ago).  And so the best they can do, in place of freedom golf/golf courses, is to create strategic golf and strategic golf courses...the word chosen to mark a high point in gca (and opposed to penal), but one that also unwittingly marked the end of something grander and more expansive, i.e. freedom. What I think happened with the move to inland sites was that the field of play, to speak metaphorically, got narrower, i.e. the definitions and the defining characteristics of golf courses became the binary/two-sided "penal" and "strategic", when in fact both those terms/concepts/courses reside on the same end of the spectrum, with freedom golf residing way at the other end -- and expanse that was too broad to be easily encompassed/embraced, then or now.

That's my theory -- I hope folks can add to it or shoot it down or take it in a completely different direction. In other words, others will have to do the heavy lifting and answer questions, cause that paragraph is all I've got on the subject!   (I called in a modest theory because it has to be just that -- I don't know the subject well at all and am just taking a stab at some ideas that had been floating around my head...)

Peter
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 10:00:47 PM by PPallotta »

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2011, 09:41:37 PM »
All politics are local.

Peter Pallotta

Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2011, 09:44:45 PM »
That's funny! You have a good sense of humour, JK, in sort of a Tom MacWood kind of way.....

P
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 09:47:21 PM by PPallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2011, 09:54:17 PM »
Peter:

On the original linksland, not every direction was open for golf, but everything not covered by gorse (ie grazed by the sheep) was more or less playable.

On "built" courses, we have to establish the extent of the course artificially.  That's the difference in freedom.

But I've been lucky enough to approach freedom golf a few times.  The Sheep Ranch is about as close as you'll find.  Cape Kidnappers, before they took the sheep off it, was definitely like that.  Old Macdonald is freedom on a huge scale.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2011, 10:00:40 PM »
P,

When I am again sober perhaps I will find the strength to read your post in its entirety.  Until then I am reminded of a friend who is having marriage troubles because he can not grasp the nuances of menopause. You see, I see no value in looking at the expanse of a site when all that truly matters is in the shot at hand. I get the sense that you are looking at a day when it is the seconds that count. When you consider how many great seconds you deserve the hours you wait become easier to bare.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 10:04:05 PM by John Kavanaugh »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2011, 11:48:23 PM »
...Old Macdonald is freedom on a huge scale.

You may call it freedom, but others will call it strategic. Is not cape, road, redan, etc. strategic? I may appreciate freedom golf at Old MacDonald to the extent that I can slice it left into the gorse at Alps, but I can still find it and have a strategic choice on how to play that shot and the next, etc. I can again slice it practically off the planet at punch bowl, but I can still find it and have a strategic choice of trying to carry the bunker on the line of instinct, or play around it, etc.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2011, 11:58:36 PM »
Barney
Can't all seconds be great?
Just like all golf shots on Peter's course?
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2011, 02:16:24 AM »
Pietro

I might look at the bigger picture and say inland golf in and of itself was freedom for any ardent golfer.  

I often wonder about the lore of the links being wide open fields of play compared to their inland cousins.  Its hard to imagine 60 yard wide fairways on many links that run through, over and around dunes whereas I can easily see 75 yard wide corridors being built for inland golf. Perhaps this is not what your meaning is, but I often misunderstand folks when these sorts of threads appear.  On the other hand, I can see where the slow creation of a course such as North Berwick and all its oddities could be seen as the height of freedom.  The site is actually not large, but it feels far more expansive because of the feeling that any sort of design concept is possible there. 

Ciao
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 02:19:09 AM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2011, 04:16:27 AM »
Pietro

I might look at the bigger picture and say inland golf in and of itself was freedom for any ardent golfer.  

I often wonder about the lore of the links being wide open fields of play compared to their inland cousins.  Its hard to imagine 60 yard wide fairways on many links that run through, over and around dunes whereas I can easily see 75 yard wide corridors being built for inland golf. Perhaps this is not what your meaning is, but I often misunderstand folks when these sorts of threads appear.  On the other hand, I can see where the slow creation of a course such as North Berwick and all its oddities could be seen as the height of freedom.  The site is actually not large, but it feels far more expansive because of the feeling that any sort of design concept is possible there. 

Ciao

Sean, I think the idea of the links as open fields of play goes back before the establishment of 'fairways' and well back into the 19th century - before the mower, when essentially only the sheep maintained the grass. There's a reason golf was largely a winter game in the early days - in the summer the grass got too high.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2011, 04:40:07 AM »
Pietro

I might look at the bigger picture and say inland golf in and of itself was freedom for any ardent golfer.  

I often wonder about the lore of the links being wide open fields of play compared to their inland cousins.  Its hard to imagine 60 yard wide fairways on many links that run through, over and around dunes whereas I can easily see 75 yard wide corridors being built for inland golf. Perhaps this is not what your meaning is, but I often misunderstand folks when these sorts of threads appear.  On the other hand, I can see where the slow creation of a course such as North Berwick and all its oddities could be seen as the height of freedom.  The site is actually not large, but it feels far more expansive because of the feeling that any sort of design concept is possible there. 

Ciao

Sean, I think the idea of the links as open fields of play goes back before the establishment of 'fairways' and well back into the 19th century - before the mower, when essentially only the sheep maintained the grass. There's a reason golf was largely a winter game in the early days - in the summer the grass got too high.

Adam

Yes, I can certainly buy that argument, especially given how short courses were back then.  However, if we are taking this concept up to the point of where architecture really begins, and for me that is when St Andrews is significantly WIDENED, say around 1875ish, then I am not so sure these wide open links really existed afterwards (of course there are likely exceptions to be found).  Once the idea of championship golf really takes hold with the coming of the railways (say 1890ish forward) sheep were well on their way out and better manicured courses were well on the way in.  So if anything, I would say freedom in architecture (if I am understanding Pietro correctly - which I likely am not) was dying before the heathland revolution ever happened.  Certainly by the time Dr Mac did his wild green at Sitwell the tide of design freedom was well dead - no?  It could well be that one of the the last flourishes of this sort of wild design was North Berwick's Gate green maybe 10 years (not sure of the date of that green, but I think it happened after teh mega changes of 1895) prior to Sitwell Park.

Ciao         
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2011, 08:49:59 AM »
Interesting thread Peter.

I think much of freedom golf stopped with the mower and increased maintenance standards.

A person or group of people had to begin to make conscious decisions about where to start or stop the process of grass cutting and by doing so began the process of delineating the play area...which in turn defined the course itself...and began to formalize the game over time into what we know today. Tom's sheep ranch analogy is a good one as the play corridors aren't bound by fairway, short rough and long rough 'cuts'. Even today I enjoy golf the best when the cut lines are blurred, which still happens in the UK, but rarely in North America primarily because the water, soil and grass conditions aren't conducive.

The sheep roamed freely as did the available play areas...at no real expense to the 'course'.

When you begin to pay a person to go out and cut something you create constraints caused primarily by expense, which rarely roams unfettered.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 09:06:18 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2011, 08:57:46 AM »
I think much of freedom golf stopped with the mower and increased maintenance standards.


KABOOM!!!!  I think Paul has made a great comment.  We don't play the game on natural occuring fields, we play on highly manicured gardens.  Askernish was freedom golf.  Ballyneal is to a degree.  Crail, kind of.  Golf just "feels" different at those places.  It feels liberating.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2011, 09:13:07 AM »
  We don't play the game on natural occuring fields, we play on highly manicured gardens.

What's this we shit?

"We" don't play on freedom filled canvass because of the over abundance of thoughtless designs built for 50 years. 1944-1994.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2011, 09:31:55 AM »
Adam

I think that much of post war golf was designed for the masses...anything green and outdoors was acceptable.

This was followed by a period of 'more' is better...more or less.

It wasn't until the advent of Golf Club Atlas that we have entered the Enlightened Period.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Peter Pallotta

Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2011, 10:33:40 AM »
Thanks gents. Freedom is a state of mind/being that we strive for and celebrate but at the same time run away from in equal measure. (I say "we" because Erich Fromm wrote a book 60 years ago called "Escape from Freedom" in which he suggested that this love-fear of freedom is inherent in the human condition, as is the love-fear of making individual choices).  It sure seems to apply to golf for me - I promote and discuss freedom golf, but I have a suspicion that such a golf course/experience (Askernish, OM) would prove to be too much freedom for me, both physically (skill-wise) and mentally-emotionally (in lacking the definition and boundaries that 'make sense'). I assume I can't be the only one who feels this way - and wonder if that dynamic has been at work for over a century now.

Peter
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 10:47:33 AM by PPallotta »

Mike Cirba

Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2011, 10:52:15 AM »
Peter,

This is a great thread, with some wonderful answers including JK's thought-provoking responses.

This past week I played on back to back days, Longaberger, built on several 100s of acres of rolling meadows and woodlands (perhaps someone here knows exactly how many), followed by EagleSticks, built on 150 acres.

I don't know two better courses in close proximity to compare and contrast architectural land usage.   I'm still digesting the differences, some forced and some simply pre-determined by the architectural styles, but it was stark and I hope to be able to articulate those specifics before long.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2011, 11:01:42 AM »
Barney
Can't all seconds be great?
Just like all golf shots on Peter's course?

Love this thought, no surprise it comes from Mike.

Nice thread, Peter. I love freedom golf, as you describe it - or at least as I interpret it. I expressed a similar view a couple weeks ago on the Seve's Parking Lot Shot thread when queried by Doug Wright. I think freedom golf is over misunderstood by most - particularly better ball strikers - as a crutch for lousy golfers who spray or top shots. That's not at all my motivation, just a happy accident, as it were.

Can't say I understand your fear of it, however...but I will say, I see it in all facets of life (fear of freedom, that is).
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2011, 04:41:07 PM »
If there's a golf hole at the other end the term 'freedom golf' is already limited/restricted by definition in my opinion...which is fine, just commenting to my opinion that the actual space a golf course environment occupies isn't/shouldn't be the determinant for the feeling of freedom on the golf course.



"Thanks gents. Freedom is a state of mind/being that we strive for and celebrate but at the same time run away from in equal measure. (I say "we" because Erich Fromm wrote a book 60 years ago called "Escape from Freedom" in which he suggested that this love-fear of freedom is inherent in the human condition, as is the love-fear of making individual choices)."

Peter,

Wouldn't it be incredible if a course presented constant decisions that played off this fear of making the choice to be free? I've been an open proponent of the importance of playing each shot with the goal of getting the ball in the hole quicker. I feel the player is disrespecting the architect (and the course) if they just go out and hit the ball wherever they want. You can do that in an open field!

The course was designed to be played. The architect should, in turn, know that I am going to try hard on every shot and should make the counter-intuitive shot actually preferred on some occassions in hopes of tripping me up.

I think the basic concept of risk/reward holes touches on this, but not exactly. Changing pace also touches on it but I'm not sure it covers it. The architect should develop a potential chess match for each player and have in their arsenal the players fear of making the liberating decision.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2011, 05:01:00 PM »
Peter,

Wouldn't it be incredible if a course presented constant decisions that played off this fear of making the choice to be free? I've been an open proponent of the importance of playing each shot with the goal of getting the ball in the hole quicker. I feel the player is disrespecting the architect (and the course) if they just go out and hit the ball wherever they want. You can do that in an open field!

The course was designed to be played. The architect should, in turn, know that I am going to try hard on every shot and should make the counter-intuitive shot actually preferred on some occassions in hopes of tripping me up.

I think the basic concept of risk/reward holes touches on this, but not exactly. Changing pace also touches on it but I'm not sure it covers it. The architect should develop a potential chess match for each player and have in their arsenal the players fear of making the liberating decision.

I think the very act of putting a hole in a well-thought out place accomplishes much of your goals.

I can't speak for Peter, but my concept of freedom golf is more against defined, black and white challenges. I prefer a more nebulous approach!
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2011, 05:12:03 PM »
Agree!

Providing the Freedom to screw up???

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2011, 05:26:43 PM »
...or succeed.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2011, 05:29:22 PM »
Come on George...that went without saying.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2011, 05:53:13 PM »
Can't tell if I am on your vibe or not.  But I feel these are two examples of freedom golf...

16 at Askernish (the green is behind the mound (Old Tom's Pulpit) off to the right...

Tee shot...



Approach...



Green (actually beside the green; sometimes the pin is down below Old Tom's Pulpit (as pictured) or up on top of it)...



The hole is WIDE open and full of choices regarding avenues of approach and ways to try to play the hole.

8 at Ballyneal...

Choices and options galore



And perhaps this is the anti-thesis of freedom golf...

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2011, 06:02:25 PM »
Mac,

I can't get my hands around either of your "free" holes and am more curious about Ballyneal.

I don't see the options you refer to. I see alot of places a ball could end up, but I don't see the choices. Can you elaborate a bit?

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A modest theory - freedom golf and small sites
« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2011, 06:09:31 PM »
Come on George...that went without saying.

Of course it did, I was just being silly.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back