GCA Book Club - Anatomy of a Golf Course - Discussion I

[Joe_Tucholski]

4 Nov - 11 Nov ---  Discuss Acknowledgments through The Psychology of Design --- Read Design and the Player through Fairway and Rough

Feel free to share any thoughts you have after reading the chapters.

I'm going to post some quotes that I found interesting and then a little bit about why I thought they were interesting, with the occasional question thrown in.

From the Foreword Ben Crenshaw said the following:
"I think every course worth playing retains some small element or spirit of the Old Course at St. Andrews.  She is the original – the course that has survived and defended the spirit of the game against the advancement of technology and the efforts of a few cocky know-it-alls who are unwilling to learn her many fascinations."
There are a few reasons I thought this was a worthwhile quote.  First I feel like Ben is saying there are some courses that are not worth playing.  So then I wonder what elements or spirit is seen on these other courses worth playing.  It has to be more than tees, fairways, greens or from my perspective the spirit of the game which is to get the ball in the hole.  So any thoughts on what is retained from the Old Course on courses worth playing?

Pg 16 - "A good topographic map, with a contour interval of 5 feet and scale of 200 feet to the inch, is essential for laying out the course; a contour interval of 2 feet is better still, enabling one to identify the small natural undulations which lend themselves to natural green sites and interesting fairway stances."
When I read that I thought a 5 foot contour map is all you really need?  I can imagine a lot of contour would be missed with just a 5 foot contour map.  I know walking the course will show you features like shallow creek beds but still that really surprised me when I first read it.  I did read the 2 foot is preferred.  I originally was thinking a digital rendition utilizing GPS with 6 inch accuracy would be a regular occurrence.  Has the technological preference changed with the improved and increased access to quality GPS?

Pg 24 – "Undulation is the soul of the game; indeed, it is an interesting exercise to reflect on the best holes one has seen or played, and then to realize how many of these great holes are not a product of their bunkering or hazards so much as of the natural contours of the ground."
I thought this quote was interesting when taken in context of other things read while reading.  Namely that modern grading has removed subtle contours and the contours are not replaced.

Pg 36 – "Most of the great courses of the world have a visual character all their own.  The Old Course at St. Andrews draws its character from the town, where it begins and ends, whose major buildings serve as landmarks in choosing a line of play on the incoming holes…"
I've never played the Old Course and understand the architecture of the town is inspiring but I would have thought the Old Course would be just as a great a course if it were in a more modern town or outside a town.  What are other people’s thoughts?

Pg 40 - "Unfortunately, the few modern architects who profess to imitate the classics have generally erred on the side of conservatism, if not dullness.  It is important to remember that the courses accepted today as classics were once considered radical."
Anyone want to make a guess who Doak was referring to in this quote? 

Pg 50 – "Golf is no more fair than life in general.  One of the qualities of golf that is supposed to build personal character is the need to put one’s failures or poor luck behind and concentrate on the next shot."
I like cheesy metaphors where golf is related to life.  Interestingly enough this topic of forgetting failures kind of comes back in the psychology chapter where good shots are remembered better than bad shots.  Hopefully the same is also true for life.

Pg 60 – From image of Pinehurst 1st hole - "Deep bunker on left, but tilt of green makes recovery easier.  Offset fairway to right lures a timid approach, but leaves player a difficult chip."
I LOVE the idea described in the first hole at Pinehurst.  Part of why I love it is I figure most people (probably myself included) won't realize this fact after 20 plays.  I feel like a lot of strategy today is simply a calculation of the chance of success balanced with the potential consequences associated with failure.  The type of hole described really throws a wrench in the calculations for all but the most observant of players.

[Connor Dougherty]

Pg 16 - "A good topographic map, with a contour interval of 5 feet and scale of 200 feet to the inch, is essential for laying out the course; a contour interval of 2 feet is better still, enabling one to identify the small natural undulations which lend themselves to natural green sites and interesting fairway stances."
When I read that I thought a 5 foot contour map is all you really need?  I can imagine a lot of contour would be missed with just a 5 foot contour map.  I know walking the course will show you features like shallow creek beds but still that really surprised me when I first read it.  I did read the 2 foot is preferred.  I originally was thinking a digital rendition utilizing GPS with 6 inch accuracy would be a regular occurrence.  Has the technological preference changed with the improved and increased access to quality GPS?

I think a lot of that has to do with on-site decisions. I would imagine that the most important thing the map does is get the general routing of the golf course. It reminds me of guys like Coore who never draw their plans out, and use physical time on the site to design their courses.

I left for the weekend and didn't have my book with me, but I'll throw some quotes up when I get back tomorrow

[Garland Bayley]

Pg 24 – "Undulation is the soul of the game; indeed, it is an interesting exercise to reflect on the best holes one has seen or played, and then to realize how many of these great holes are not a product of their bunkering or hazards so much as of the natural contours of the ground."
I thought this quote was interesting when taken in context of other things read while reading.  Namely that modern grading has removed subtle contours and the contours are not replaced.

One of my favorites. It has gotten to the point where players will play away from severe contouring, but yet prefer to be in some bunkers.

[Alex Lagowitz]

Pg 16 - "A good topographic map, with a contour interval of 5 feet and scale of 200 feet to the inch, is essential for laying out the course; a contour interval of 2 feet is better still, enabling one to identify the small natural undulations which lend themselves to natural green sites and interesting fairway stances."

It seems to me that a majority of the routing is done with a large scale topography map.  Much of the smaller details such as minute mounding and cool little undulations fall into place later as the course is built.

[Colin Macqueen]

Joe,
You cotton onto the idea that Tom Doak brought up regarding construction when you say "Namely that modern grading has removed subtle contours and the contours are not replaced."

or in T.D.'s words.....
"The downside of modern construction is that many of the subtle contours ...... are lost during the mass grading of modern layouts...".

Interestingly Tom Doak responded to this in another recent thread by Ed Oden (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53909.0.html) and wrote
"Since I wrote The Anatomy of a Golf Course, we've gotten vastly better at using modern equipment to build course features -- and the technology [especially the knuckle bucket on an excavator for building bunkers] has gotten better and more precise, too."

This suggests to me that, a decade or more  later, micro-contouring which, as Tom Doak says is "...the soul of the game.." could well be making a comeback. Do the cognescenti think this is the case?

Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

Pg 16 - "A good topographic map, with a contour interval of 5 feet and scale of 200 feet to the inch, is essential for laying out the course; a contour interval of 2 feet is better still, enabling one to identify the small natural undulations which lend themselves to natural green sites and interesting fairway stances."
When I read that I thought a 5 foot contour map is all you really need?  I can imagine a lot of contour would be missed with just a 5 foot contour map.  I know walking the course will show you features like shallow creek beds but still that really surprised me when I first read it.  I did read the 2 foot is preferred.  I originally was thinking a digital rendition utilizing GPS with 6 inch accuracy would be a regular occurrence.  Has the technological preference changed with the improved and increased access to quality GPS?

When I wrote that, I was mostly thinking that I didn't want to rule out the types of clients who couldn't afford a two-foot contour survey of their property.  I've done routings off a five-foot contour map once or twice -- that was all we had at Black Forest, and it's all Dick Youngscap had at Sand Hills -- and I've done a lot of overseas projects with one-meter contour maps.  But a map with two-foot contours is way better, because it lets you find a lot of the smaller features in the initial routing process.

[Josh Tarble]

Pg 24 – "Undulation is the soul of the game; indeed, it is an interesting exercise to reflect on the best holes one has seen or played, and then to realize how many of these great holes are not a product of their bunkering or hazards so much as of the natural contours of the ground."
I thought this quote was interesting when taken in context of other things read while reading.  Namely that modern grading has removed subtle contours and the contours are not replaced.

One of my favorites. It has gotten to the point where players will play away from severe contouring, but yet prefer to be in some bunkers.

I really like this quote and ideology as well.  I am also reading "Spirit of St. Andrews" right now as well, and it's amazing to me at how similar MacKenzie and Tom write as well as think.  Event this one as well:

Pg 40 - "Unfortunately, the few modern architects who profess to imitate the classics have generally erred on the side of conservatism, if not dullness.  It is important to remember that the courses accepted today as classics were once considered radical."

I thought this first section of the book really was the heart of it.  I know the rest goes into more detail, but it does a really good job laying out the overall thought process going into a design.