The balance in architecture

[Tony Ristola]

Sean,

Though greens alone could drive the strategy for every hole, this isn't necessary as there are usually some native features to work off of. When not, they can be manufactured; bunkers, ditches, water features, hillocks, etc... So... I agree with what you said.

I did use the term "green -sites", not just greens. You can have a tame green surface and a  challenging green-site, and a variety of them is certainly necessary. Each hole should have interest and ideally individuality.

The difficulty of talking about architecture and accomplishing it is the millions of ways you can build holes to create an interesting golf course.

[Mac Plumart]

It seems we agree that balance is very important in architecture, Bart's original question.

Another question he asked, was is fairway width over-rated?  It seems we agree that answer is no.  And it seems to be agreed that fairway width enhances green contours by creating great angles of attack.

If I'm on track in regards that we seem to agree on that, what about another question he poses in the opening post...

Am I wrong to think greens are more important than tee shots?

What say you gurus?  I think so...but again balance.  Tee shots are crucial and when combined with the appropriate fairway width and green contours, you've got something extraspecial.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Though greens alone could drive the strategy for every hole, this isn't necessary as there are usually some native features to work off of. When not, they can be manufactured; bunkers, ditches, water features, hillocks, etc... So... I agree with what you said.

I did use the term "green -sites", not just greens. You can have a tame green surface and a  challenging green-site, and a variety of them is certainly necessary. Each hole should have interest and ideally individuality.

The difficulty of talking about architecture and accomplishing it is the millions of ways you can build holes to create an interesting golf course.

Tony

I think it is better to talk in terms of green sites and contours/slopes (I am a big fan of slopes) because its the entire package of the green and its surrounds which effect the approach and ultimately the drive if we work a hole backwards.  I think this is where an archie can be really creative rather than possibly relying on green surfaces too much.  That said, I don't ever recall seeing a course which is over-reliant on green surfaces - do you know of any?  For that matter, I have never seen a course which was overly wide either.  I have seen a few holes which made me scratch my head - in particular the 4th at Bulls Bay.  Jeepers that fairway is immense for the second - I can't fathom why.   

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

I think conventional wisdom does golf course architecture no favor.  Perhaps that's why I'm so fond of the ODG's - they designed and built when there was no convention, partidularly with respect to parkland and farmland (a nod to Tom McWod) sites.   Too often, pedestrian architecture suffers from the Garanimals effect - designing smaller and shallowe greens for short approaches and larger and deeper greens for long approaches.  Imbalance breeds half-par holes and that's a good thing.

Too much of a good thing is a good thing.
- Alan Jackson

Bogey

[Jim Sherma]

Reading through this thread it seems that so much of it boils down to conditions. Width and angles and strategy is very much a function of how receptive the fairways and greens are. If you can spin the ball sufficiently to hold the green from the "wrong" angle then the strategy is clearly neutered.

This became clear to me last year playing the rather generic Ault-designed Monroe Valley in central PA. I'd been playing there somewhat regularly for a few years and thouhgt it was a decent layout and the greens were generally in nice shape for the money. Last summer as it got real dry and hard the strategy of the course really revealed itself. I found myself becoming very conscious of the angles necessary to get the ball into different spots on the greens. It was more difficult but also more fun as more decisions had to be made and the penalty for being on the wrong side of the fairways had to be dealt with. Once the rains came and it softened up I was back to banging drives with no real concern because a decent shot would hold the greens regardless of angle.

In general, firmer greens necessitate more strategic golf given "any" architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

While I grant firm and fast is tougher all around, is the statement "If you can spin the ball sufficiently to hold the green from the "wrong" angle then the strategy is clearly neutered" really true?

If a green angles right, and has an opening, I figure its an easier shot from the right because you have greater margin for error both short and long.  If coming in from the left edge, you probably have to take enough club to carry a bunker, but have distance control and/or hit more spin, to avoid going over the green.  The right side probably has more back to front slope to assist you, as well (if typically designed)  It takes a really good shot to come over the bunker, stay below the hole, etc.

So, the advantage reduces from perhaps missing the green to hitting it from firm and fast, the advantage to avoid a downhill putt, and get close to the pin still exists, IMHO.  And, it might be better.  Do we really need a birdie to bogey swing in strategy?  Or is more likely birdie to more likely par enough?

[Jim Sherma]

Jim,

While I grant firm and fast is tougher all around, is the statement "If you can spin the ball sufficiently to hold the green from the "wrong" angle then the strategy is clearly neutered" really true?

I may have overstated my point with the term "neutered". Perhaps a term like "muted" might be better.

If a green angles right, and has an opening, I figure its an easier shot from the right because you have greater margin for error both short and long.  If coming in from the left edge, you probably have to take enough club to carry a bunker, but have distance control and/or hit more spin, to avoid going over the green.  The right side probably has more back to front slope to assist you, as well (if typically designed)  It takes a really good shot to come over the bunker, stay below the hole, etc.

True - but the severity of the green surrounds (depth of bunkers, etc.) and the slope and speed of the green required to create a similar impact as a simple firm surface would clearly add cost.

So, the advantage reduces from perhaps missing the green to hitting it from firm and fast, the advantage to avoid a downhill putt, and get close to the pin still exists, IMHO.  And, it might be better.  Do we really need a birdie to bogey swing in strategy?  Or is more likely birdie to more likely par enough?

Agree that strategy can be impacted by features that require a decision resulting in changes to the expected values of the potential outcomes. If anything, subtley lost strokes are much more fun and interesting than lost strokes due to obvious things like water hazards. I think the point I was making was that the architecture can be more simplified and still be interesting when the turf is on the firm side. This fact becomes very apparent when fairly basic muni-type courses firm up.

[Tom_Doak]

It seems we agree that balance is very important in architecture, Bart's original question.

Another question he asked, was is fairway width over-rated?  It seems we agree that answer is no.  And it seems to be agreed that fairway width enhances green contours by creating great angles of attack.

If I'm on track in regards that we seem to agree on that, what about another question he poses in the opening post...

Am I wrong to think greens are more important than tee shots?

What say you gurus?  I think so...but again balance.  Tee shots are crucial and when combined with the appropriate fairway width and green contours, you've got something extraspecial.

A good green can affect play all the way back to the tee, but a good landing area will rarely make a hole great all by itself.  Greens are more important, but they aren't the only thing.