What Features Should The 2016 Olympic Course Have?

[David Harshbarger]

It's a shame they have not released their criteria for what the course should be [both for the event and in "legacy mode" afterward], so I can't discuss it all here.  For now, let's just say that whoever wrote it up was more thoughtful than many of the posts in this space so far.

Interesting point on the legacy mode.  The focus appears to be on youth development asthe course's legacy.  Does that open the door for a sort of transformer type plan, where the course and supporting features transform from a major venue for competition to an ongoing venue for learning?

As far as the signature hole comment, I was trying to capture a more nuanced idea there, that a signature hole provides a shorthand for the casual fan, and as such is about communicating the course's identity.  TPC Sawgrass 17, as well as Amen Corner or more precisely ANGC'S 12, I think are really good analogies to look at.  Both courses were built with the expressed purpose of hosting championships.  Both holes capture the imagination of the casual fan.

Tom, with your personal knowledge of Pete Dye, was having TPC Sawgrass 17 acting as the signature hole for the course part of his thinking, or did that evolve on its own?

[Kyle Harris]

Shape an appropriate area for the medal ceremony in a closely-mown area behind the last putting green.

[Jud_T]

The course should be designed to test the top golfers in the world.
It should be in excess of 7200 yards. It should have narrow driving areas. It should be penal. It should have good viewing and space for spectators. There should be space allowed for stands and trading areas. It should have returning nines to the clubhouse. The course must be both visually exciting and create drama.

Deja Vu

(dā'zhä vū')
n.
Psychology. The illusion of having already experienced something actually being experienced for the first time.
An impression of having seen or experienced something before: Old-timers watched the stock-market crash with a distinct sense of déjà vu.
Dull familiarity; monotony: the déjà vu of the tabloid headlines.
[French : déjà, already + vu, seen.]

[Mac Plumart]

It's a shame they have not released their criteria for what the course should be [both for the event and in "legacy mode" afterward], so I can't discuss it all here.  For now, let's just say that whoever wrote it up was more thoughtful than many of the posts in this space so far.

First off, I'd hope the person who wrote up the criteria for what the course should be (both for the event and for its legacy) is more thoughtful than a post on the internet.  Hopefully, they spent a whole heck of a lot more time on it then the people did before they posted.  

Secondly (and most importantly), I love the thought that they are thinking legacy long after these Olympic games are over.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to think that every course should have a legacy and it should be designed and maintained in order to fulfill that legacy.

[Jim Colton]

I'm hoping for something closer to CommonGround 2.0 than Celtic Manor 2.0

[Peter Pallotta]

So many ways to approach/think about this.  Be a leader or a follower, i.e. set a new tone/vision for golf, or take the prevailing tastes/current examples and go one better?  Provide tour-type players exactly what they want and expect (and avoid any/most criticism) or take them out of their comfort zones (and strive for achieving the magical/controversial)? Focus on the Olympics, or make the pitch that the courses real value lies in the many years ahead?

Just for fun I googled 'golf in Brazil' and grabbed this snippet from one of the first sites to come up. "Costa do Sauipe Golf Links is a Brian Costello design that fully takes advantage of its glorious location overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. 'Most golfers that visit will want to play Costa do Sauipe', Salvador caddie Enivaldo Souza Santos said.  At nearly 7,000 yards from the tips, Costa do Sauipe is a championship course that played host to the 2005 Brazilian Open. Always in pristine condition, Costa Do Sauipe's reputation is gold throughout the country and features carts, driving range and a quality clubhouse with all the amenities. 'It's really one of the best courses in all of Brazil,' said Sao Paulo resident and avid golfer Alexandre Rui Chammas. 'They even have carts, which is rare for Brazil.'"

Peter

Jim - Common Ground. Yes. Very nice.

[Mac Plumart]

How can we say what features we want there when we haven't seen topos maps and/or walked the property?  Doesn't this go against many of Mackenzie's ideal of working with nature and what is there already and lend itself more akin to RTJ style of making the land meld into your idea of what the course needs to be?

[Mac Plumart]

I've got to go run off and play some golf, but I'll post this real quick and wait responses/thrashings...

In regards to Commonground...would I be right to say the following about it...designed to move semi-skilled golfers around the course fairly quickly and allow them to enjoy their round.  Wide fairways and ample landing zones.  Interesting greens, but not ball busting classic Doak greens like a few at Pac Dunes and almost all of them at Ballyneal.  And well placed and interesting hazards, but not overly penal.  Again, all designed to move large amounts of public golfers around the course in an acceptable amount of time.  Fun, affordable, interesting, public golf.

I agree I'd lean towards this rather than what I saw on TV at Celtic Manor...but this is not ideal to test the greatest in the game.  If the legacy is to have golf flourish in Brazil after the games leave...fine.  But the pros will kill that style of a course unless the greens are tricked up and the rough gets a million feet deep.

If that is the mix (test the best and leave it fun for the masses)...fairways needs to be wide...risk/rewards need to be abundant with plenty of wide open spaces to avoid hazards but HUGE teeth on the risk side of the equation to punish the pros if they fail to pull of a the risky shot...and greens need undulations that can be sped up, but are also fun at 9ish stimps.

Royal Melbourne looked like it could pull this type of thing off.  Augusta National as well, particurly with holes like 13. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter

Lived in Brazil, i.e. Manaus/Belem for 4 years, played golf on a rough plot of land in the early 1970's, saw no carts then, but the game was raw and so much fun, but then the course (small, very small course 3 short Holes) was designed from the bloodline of Old Tom. Wonder if anyone will try to do an Askernish and developed my old course (if anyone could find it - that is  ).

Had the best year of my life in Belem in 1971/2, what a country.

Melvyn  

[Sven Nilsen]

How can we say what features we want there when we haven't seen topos maps and/or walked the property?  Doesn't this go against many of Mackenzie's ideal of working with nature and what is there already and lend itself more akin to RTJ style of making the land meld into your idea of what the course needs to be?

Mac -

As noted elsewhere, the land is flat.  Hence, the CommonGround suggestion.

[Neil White]

It's a shame they have not released their criteria for what the course should be [both for the event and in "legacy mode" afterward], so I can't discuss it all here.  For now, let's just say that whoever wrote it up was more thoughtful than many of the posts in this space so far.

Tom touches on an important point and one which is probably harder to achieve with a golf course than any other form of athletic facility - its use after the games have been and gone.

I can only hypothesise that whoever is chosen to design the course will be given the tough task of providing a course capable of testing the worlds best, but then be able to have an end product which the local population can utilise day in, day out.  What that flex will be - who knows?

Thinking out loud - are the IOC / other governing bodies really wanting a course where par is protected too much?  Could it be that for the Olympics they want to see who can execute the shot best?  A test of personal training / skill?  Do they care if 20 under or 20 over wins?

It's not as though there is a World record to be played for......... is there?

At the end of the day the IOC's remit is possibly not to create an architectural masterpiece.

Maybe the title to this thread should change to "What features should the 2016 Olympic course not have?"

Neil.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Free tickets for all S. Americans, with a special focus on youngsters. Request forms could easily be distributed through the numerous sporting clubs. 

 

[Tom_Doak]

I do think it needs that signature hole that captures the imagination and sums up the course.  It's a great shorthand to have a hole where the casual fan can say Oh Yeah, that's the course with ______________.  Think Amen Corner, Sawgrass 17, Cypress Point 16.

Dave

This thread is starting to make me think I am wasting my time on Golf Club Atlas.  .

Wasting your time doing what? Shooting fish in a barrel by putting people down and promoting your own design business? Honestly, Tom, at least try to be dignified in your posts.

Brian:

Thanks for proving my point.  I was too harsh toward David -- and David, I apologize for that -- when in fact it's the whole tone of this thread that put me off.  The site is getting much too cynical for my tastes nowadays.

Look at the nineteen responses to David's original post, before my own which caused you such great offense.  Several of them are prefaced by "It will probably never happen."  A couple of guys suggested odds of certain features [which they mock] being included.  RJ Daley suggested it was all about sucking up to the judges, and that you needed a "world class" superintendent to do something environmentally sound.  

Mac Plumart diverged briefly by suggesting that the thread could be excellent, without offering any ideas of his own.  Tim Nugent [an architect, shocker!] made the only affirmative suggestion of something that should be tried.

That's what has been missing here.  The site has always had its share of bickering, for sure, but there used to be plenty of guys participating with actual IDEAS they wanted to discuss.  Now, not so much.  I was hoping to get the discussion back on track, but it's gotten to the point where I can't do it without expressing some frustration at what passes for discussion here nowadays.  I don't think the reason for it is because I'm putting people down, but I'm willing to find out.

So, time for a vacation for me.  To Rio!     And thanks for clarifying some things for me.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, at the risk of offering a pallid notion, I think Melvyn and his photo captured it perfectly.  For so many reasons, a longer version of The Old Course seems to me the way to go.  (And TOC seems to handle spectators just fine.  I dare say there are more fans there for the Open than will be there for most rounds at the Olympics).  I agreed with Jim re Common Ground partly because it adds another element to this 'flattish' model, the name itself implying a truly public venue.  Re TOC - I'd like to see 7400+ yards and huge subtle greens and near-random but exceedingly penal bunkers.  

Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I think you may be setting the bar a bit high in your expectations.  As you are one who is seemingly at the top of his game in creating quality golf courses, and have hit several home runs in the last decade, its a bit of a tough act to follow for us to provide the fresh insights and ideas as it relates to golf architecture.

Its a little bit like asking me to give Warren Buffet a few investment ideas...

[Sven Nilsen]

Based on the following:

1.  The Google maps images;
2.  The fact its a relatively flat site;
3.  The partial assumption that there's a bit of a sandy base; and
4.  My limited knowledge of the Brazilian climate;

here's my list of what I'd guess the organizers are looking for and what the site will support, in no particular order:

1.  Spectators - the site will need to be able to handle large crowds.  Due to the terrain of the site, I'd guess a British Open type solution (temporary grandstands) would be a better option than trying to recreate the stadium qualities of TPC Sawgrass.  As this course will probably not host a major crowd event post-2016, I don't see the need to move or add land to create embankments.

2.  Access - not only will there be a ton of spectators, but the media coverage may be on a scale never seen before for a golf tournament.  You're going to have to be able to move the crowds around the course easily while providing access for the media/officials that will be covering and overseeing the event.  I foresee playing corridors that are separated by enough room to accommodate all of the above, along with massive spaces for media/spectator villages. 

3.  Land and Climate - I have little knowledge of the land the course is being built on or the grasses that it can support.  It would be really cool to see a links-style course built, if the turf lends itself to that style of play.  I also would be interested to know what the prevailing winds are like in the area.  My guess is that this site is on a sandy base but that the climate will not support the types of grasses best suited for fast and firm.  I'd also guess that this is not the windiest of sites.  If these assumptions are correct, I think we're looking at something more like a Florida style course than a Scottish style. 

4.  Timing of the Games - Does anyone know when these games are being played during the year?  Remember that Brazil's summer is our winter.  Add in the question of whether or not golf is a seasonal game in Brazil.  This might not be a factor if the climate is stable enough to support optimal conditions year round.  Point is, the timing of the games and the nature of the golf season at the site may have an impact on certain choices in the design process.

5.  Future Use - How much of a factor is the future use of this site?  Is it going to be a major resort destination (Come Play the Olympic Course!), a private enclave (Come Live On the Olympic Course) or a center for development of the game in Brazil.  I'd vote for the third option, or at the very least some combination of the three.  Would the gaps between holes suggested in #2 above be used for housing?  Is the waterfront prime development real estate and off limits for course use?

6.  Style - For this one, lets assume the nature of the site lends itself to a broad range of golf course styles.  This comes down to a thematic question.  Do you pay homage to the roots of the game?  Do you allow for a Brazilian or South American influence? Do you emphasize the types of courses that most of the world sees (i.e. not links golf)?  Should the Olympic Golf Course be a place to venture outside of the box?  Does cartball infrastructure need to be in place pre-Olympics (is there any debate that this will be a cart-ball course in its future use)? 

7.  Course Flexibility - Does the future use mean this course needs to be a test for the contestants yet playable for the resort golfer?  There have been a ton of comments lately regarding designing for high and low handicappers.  Here's a chance to see this design process in practice.

8.  Balance of Skill Test - There are courses that favor good putters, courses that favor accurate iron play, courses that favor bombers.  I'd like to see a course that has the best balance of tests of all facets of the game.  No one skill set should be markedly emphasized or advantaged over another.  To me, the fairest test for the field is the only way to test the complete game.

I've spent a bit of time thinking about the question of how you identify the world's best golfer for the purpose of awarding the gold medal.  Basically, its one tournament, and no matter what the course is like its going to come down to who's having a good week and who's not.  Identifying the world's best golfer is not something that happens over a weekend, it happens over time.  No one is going to say that Keegan Bradley is the world's best, but for one weekend he was the best in the field.  Every once in a while a player's dominance over a period of time shines through and by winning they validate the public perception that they are the best (think Jack in his prime, Tiger during his slam, etc.).  I'd say Rory came pretty close to this when winning the US Open after his showing at the Masters. 

The most apt comparison is to cycling.  The Tour de France is designed to identify the best cyclist every year.  This contest is waged over a period of time that allows for consistent results to outweigh one day performances.  The Olympic golf medal for cycling is awarded on the basis that is equivalent to one stage from the TdF.  No matter what kind of course is used for that stage, its not going to measure consistent results over a period of time.  The same applies to Olympic golf.  The gold medal will probably not be awarded to the world's best golfer, it will be awarded to the best golfer during the Olympic tournament.  The idea that the course needs to identify the world's best is a myth.

[David Harshbarger]

As the thread starter, it was my intent that it be a engaging topic.   If anything I'm a little miffed that what I think are substantive are being lumped into a bucket of dregs.

For example, the signature hole concept.  First, I didn't suggest it was the most important element of the course.   Second, there is a huge difference between the "signature" hole on the umpteenth residential course in Scottsdale and the 17th at Sawgrass, the 12th at Augusta, or the 16th at Cypress Point.  All 3 courses are highly regarded, and 2 are world-top-5.  In these cases it isn't that the other 17 holes are there to support that signature hole, but rather, the signature hole comes to represent the distillation of all that is great about the course.  

I read a something about the Masters, probably on here, about how Bobby Jones wanted his course to host the Open.  However he wanted his tournament played when the azaleas were in bloom and the course would be at its finest.  Knowing the USGA would not play the Open so early in the year, he created a tournament of his own.  Maybe this is apocryphal.  But to the extent it is true that Jones created a course to test the best, in April, then I take offense the idea that suggesting a top caliber course might deliberately have a signature hole that encapsulates the story the course has to tell is somehow either cynical, idiotic on its face, or inappropriate.

Tom, i appreciate your calmer words, but what I'd really be interested in re the signature hole is how Pete Dye saw TPC Sawgrass 17.  It's such a dramatic golf hole, it's hard to imagine him thinking it wasn't going to be the hole everyone talked about, on one of the big deal commissions to come around.

The other thought I think was a positive one is the idea that there may be some intrinsically Rio treatment that would reflect the city, the country, the time, the vibe.

When the Olympics choose the first time developing countries, it is generally seen as that countries coming-out party to beat all coming-out parties.  In, Brazil, there's a lot going on as they keep moving into the big time.  If you had to dress up a course in Tango, Carnival, and Beaches, what would you get?  Is that the old Brazil?  Is there a new, muscular Brazil that would be different?  And more generally, is there a story that ties the course to the time and event, that's reflected in the course, that would separate two equivalent design submissions?

Dave

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

You're amongst friends here, mostly.    I wouldn't get bent about the cynicism, because mostly it hasn't been directed at you.  The feeling I get is that many of us on this board--me included--think that you or Gil could probably do something unique, different, and special for a truly global event.  I'm not so sure that the selection "committee" is as forward thinking as we might be around here.

I think that historically in the past decade or two, international golf competitions haven't been as forward thinking as they could have been based on "brand recognition" and the all encompassing influence of money.  I say that based mainly on the last few site selections for Europe in the Ryder Cup (and the Presidents Cup other than RM).  In modern elite level golf, the players have a huge say in how the game gets played and where.  The Olympics has already set a dangerous precedent by allowing the players a forceful opinion in format for the event.  IMO, a 72-hole medal play event will not be a "showcase" event for golf internationally.  

With all of that said, the golf course is going to have a huge say in how the event will ultimately be perceived and the future of golf in Brazil (from the day it gets finished it will be the most famous course in South America most likely).  The course will require tremendous flexibility to truly test the field over a four-round event.   I think you've mentioned to me a couple of your ideas for that flexibility.  I think that the golf course will also require flexibility in order for the event to not become stale to the viewing audience.  Most of that variance and flexibility will have to be achieved by large differences in the pinnable areas on the greens, width in the fairways, and distance differences in the holes.  Varying the length of a hole by 50-1000 yds from one day to the next--while changing the pin as well--will totally change the character and proximity to well placed hazards.  It will cause the players to have to think instead of get a number and hit.  It will also provide the course an ability to continually draw rounds from the local population in "legacy mode" if the expected tourist rounds don't pan out.

The golf course can be something that we talk about for a long time.  I hope it is.  But it has to include some "throwback" links features of contour as well as modern length variances to be truly memorable, IMO.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom Doak...you are off base.  You might be in a bad mood and ignoring the good parts of the posts...but that is just a guess.

Read David's further explanation of what he meant by a signature hole.  But initially rather than ask him to explain and/or discuss in more detail what he meant, you pan him and insult him.  What is the definition of cynical? 

I did say this thread has the potential to be great.  But what needs to happen is that people need to communicate back and forth, you know like an actual converstation, rather than just post their ideas and move on and/or not read others.

For instance, in my post that Tom brought up...I did say this thread could be great...but I also asked about the Seminole idealology and the need for spectator areas.  No one commented on that.

RJ actually put up some pretty good posts...and had a bit of follow through...but not a lot of follow through.

Tom, you say a lot that no one makes you think much any more about architecture.  Is that on us or on you?  Perhaps reading and thinking about people's ideas rather than just dismissing them might help you a bit.  David's signature hole idea appears to be much deeper than you initially thought it was...for example.

As I've said before on this site...there is a lot here to be offered...but people have to work together and actually communicate.  In fact, a lot of the posts after the spat are pretty solid.  If any one cares to read them and talk about them.

[Mac Plumart]

How can we say what features we want there when we haven't seen topos maps and/or walked the property?  Doesn't this go against many of Mackenzie's ideal of working with nature and what is there already and lend itself more akin to RTJ style of making the land meld into your idea of what the course needs to be?

Mac -

As noted elsewhere, the land is flat.  Hence, the CommonGround suggestion.

Sven, the site is flat...and Commonground is, but it is not the only site like that.  Chechesse Creek is flat as well and a pretty decent challenge...but not overly difficult for the bogey golfer.  I'd go for Chechessee Creek style over Commonground.  TPC Sawgrass is pretty flat if memory serves me correctly, as well.

But that has little to do with the post you quoted from me, actually the Commonground was from another...but we can still work with your post.

[Sven Nilsen]

How can we say what features we want there when we haven't seen topos maps and/or walked the property?  Doesn't this go against many of Mackenzie's ideal of working with nature and what is there already and lend itself more akin to RTJ style of making the land meld into your idea of what the course needs to be?

Mac -

As noted elsewhere, the land is flat.  Hence, the CommonGround suggestion.

Sven, the site is flat...and Commonground is, but it is not the only site like that.  Chechesse Creek is flat as well and a pretty decent challenge...but not overly difficult for the bogey golfer.  I'd go for Chechessee Creek style over Commonground.  TPC Sawgrass is pretty flat if memory serves me correctly, as well.

But that has little to do with the post you quoted from me, actually the Commonground was from another...but we can still work with your post.

Mac:

The suggestion was that a topo probably wouldn't provide much benefit.  You'd probably need to be walking the property to pick up any features of the land.  Perhaps there are bumps and rolls, but I'm guessing that whoever gets the bid is going to have to be pretty creative to give the site any character.

Sven

[Mac Plumart]

Gotchya.

[Chris Johnston]

Topo's always provide benefit, as do any neighboring features that can provide unique backdrops.

[Sven Nilsen]

Chris:

That may be the case in general, but I think we're going to find that on this site a topo map will be of little benefit.  From what I've heard, the site has been stripped and the property is fairly bereft of features that would lend themselves to discovery from a map, no matter how detailed. 

This is not a Sand Hills, Ballyneal or Dismal River where golf holes were found.  This is probably more like Shadow Creek or, as a more recent example, Shooting Star. 

Sven

[Chris Johnston]

Sven

Topos are always important, but I concur importance can vary from place to place. The small bumps are very important and they can give clues to drainage.  Let's hope the finished product fits.  Maybe there is a topo from before it was stripped?

I never said nor implied this was anything like Sand Hills or Dismal River, but thanks for pointing that out.  It appears far more like a Florida site.

Shooting Star did have a bit of elevation and water to work with, not to mention to-die-for backdrops that make the place.