[Niall C]

Patrick has a thread going about those damn sneaky architects who disguise the proper line of play by the way they angle the tees or some such ploy. I had actually been thinking along similar lines on ploys that architects use to fool the golfer. A pal of mine was telling me last week of when he played a course and got into a conversation with a gentlemen in the bar afterwards who enthused about the use of different sized bunkers short of the green to fool the golfer on the distance, of dips in front of the greens also there to deliberately foreshorten the distance, both ploys to disguise the real distance.

Now for those like Melvyn who don't use sky caddies, strokesavers or yardage markers but rely on the ability to gauge the distance by eye, I can't help wondering that this type of trickery is bad architecture. Imagine a golfer who has studied his shot, conceived the shot he wants to play and executes precisely as intended only to find his ball land short of the green because of some hidden dip between him and the green. Now imagine the dip was put there deliberately by the architect. Is that good architecture ?

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Michael Moore]

This sort of deceit works even when the golfer knows the yardage. The eye and the brain will be in conflict and the shot will be more difficult than one without camouflage.

A ridge is more subtle and more confusing than bunkers. We saw this a few times at a recent trip to Springbrook in Leeds, Maine.

Yes, it's good architecture, great when it is done well.

[Brent Hutto]

I'll answer similarly to the crooked tee box thread. I don't think it necessarily detracts from the architecture but unless it's awfully well done it sure doesn't add anything.

Most of the stuff brought up when "deception" is discussed around here is the doofy kind where it's a surprise the first time you play the course and then moot every time thereafter. If it's just a "Gotcha" surprise then it's a waste of the designer's and builder's efforts.

But I have a lot of time for subtly ambiguous visual design. It takes careful planning and implementation to use some sort of visual misdirection to make a golfer trust a swing that looks like too much or too little club (or the wrong aiming line) even when he has played the hole a dozen times and knows exactly what he needs to do.

P.S. Stated another way, any supposed bit of visual misdirection that is spoiled by a caddy giving you the yardage wasn't much of a feature to begin with. It's the ones that have potential to mess you up regardless of knowing the required shot that are worthwhile.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Whilst I for one am on the other thread stating that deliberately angling rectangular tee-boxes away from the line of play is not usually a result of good architecture, I absolutely believe that the type of deception you are stating above is part of the very essence of good architecture...

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Patrick has a thread going about those damn sneaky architects who disguise the proper line of play by the way they angle the tees or some such ploy. I had actually been thinking along similar lines on ploys that architects use to fool the golfer. A pal of mine was telling me last week of when he played a course and got into a conversation with a gentlemen in the bar afterwards who enthused about the use of different sized bunkers short of the green to fool the golfer on the distance, of dips in front of the greens also there to deliberately foreshorten the distance, both ploys to disguise the real distance.

Niall,

Frank Pont wrote an interesting article in the Golf Architecture magazine last year(?). He used, as an example, the new par three at Cruden Bay. From the tee, one side of the green looks very shallow; it looks like a tee shot has no chance of staying on the green, but in fact that part of the green is deeper than the other -  more receptive in appearance - portion of the green. He may have raised the front and sloped the back so you can only see a thin strip of the green. He also illustrated other examples on courses he has designed/renovated.

I believe that this sort of shennannigans by the architect is very clever and should be encouraged.

Now for those like Melvyn who don't use sky caddies, strokesavers or yardage markers but rely on the ability to gauge the distance by eye, I can't help wondering that this type of trickery is bad architecture. Imagine a golfer who has studied his shot, conceived the shot he wants to play and executes precisely as intended only to find his ball land short of the green because of some hidden dip between him and the green. Now imagine the dip was put there deliberately by the architect. Is that good architecture ?

Why not? The player's ball landed in a dip; he/she should have taken more club. He may have played the shot he thought was required, but he got it wrong.

[Josh Tarble]

There are few things I enjoy more than well executed visual deception on the course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are few things I enjoy more than well executed visual deception on the course.

+1.... And for the record, the reason that I don't believe misaligning tees is the same thing is that if you go to the bother of designing and constructing a geometric (and usually unnatural) looking tee, then it creates that line for you. To then deliberately skew that line is more poor trickery than clever deception. Skewed rectangular tees are often to do with bad construction in my experience, not good architecture. Perfectly happy / delighted to have free-form tees that don't align you though... As for Niall's visual deception, my ODG mentor Tom Simpson was a huge believer... And so am I.... In summary, it takes a lot of skill to create good illusions... It takes none to skew a tee off centre

[JESII]

Imagine a golfer who has studied his shot, conceived the shot he wants to play and executes precisely as intended only to find his ball land short of the green because of some hidden dip between him and the green. Now imagine the dip was put there deliberately by the architect. Is that good architecture ?

Thoughts ?

Niall

The best! In my opinion.

[Mike Schott]

The camouflage is usually only deceptive for the first time player of the course. Once you know the course you can adjust your shot strategy. This may not be a design that works for a muni but for resort or private courses I don't see an issue. I love the deceptive bunkering at Pasatiempo and Ross's bunkering short of many greens is another example of this type of architecture.

[Scott Sander]

The camouflage is usually only deceptive for the first time player of the course.

Not the good stuff (IMHO) - at least not to the average golfer.
The best examples create consistent uncertainty or internal conflict even for those who would seem to have ample information and experience to overcome it.

I just played a shabby little 9-holer last night with my son.  I've probably played it 35 times in my lifetime.  #8 is a par 3 with a larger-than-course-scale bunker short and left of the green.  From the tee it looks like it is tight to the green, but its back edge is actually at least 5 paces short of the green.  I -know- it's like that as I've probably noted it in my mind 35 times.  But it doesn't look like its that short.  Instead, it looks like a real issue and suggests that the middle of the green is the "safe" play when in fact the left side is the safe play.  And while I play the 'right' shot based on my knowledge, I don't always play it 'well', and I give credit to the design for that.

I have no idea who designed the course, nor do I know with certainty that they meant for that to happen - but it's really, really good!

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - just when I'd come to the conclusion that most (even the best of) gca is very straightforward and obvious. you raise something that reminds me of the magic that is possible, and how subtle our experiences can be on a golf course. When a course looks and feels natural/lay of the land, for example, it is striking how this affects my experience/appreciation of deception and camouflage. If a green site is perched up on a slight (and natural looking) rise/shelf, such that from the fairway a bunker seems to be right next to the green, I really marvel (in a good way) when I get there to discover that it is actually 30 yards short of the green, and that I'm in it!  I think that reaction is another example of how a golfer (me) prefers surprises/challenges that haven't been put there by a wily architect/the hand of man but that instead occur naturally -- and that of course is the magic, since in another sense I know well enough that everything has been "put there" by the architect.

Or, as JES says (in his usual short/pithy way), that's "the best!"

Peter

[Niall C]

It looks like I'm in a minority on this one. I can appreciate that the deception can be skillfuly or artfully done, and full marks to the architect for achieving the effect but minus marks for the concept. And BTW, I am differentiating between the type of deception where the gca deliberately misleads the player on distance to say the example Donal makes of Frank Pont's design at Cruden Bay.

The first is a straight mislead where as the second is about intimidation ie you know there's some green there but as its on the eye line and there's no perspective it makes the player uncomfortable about taking that particular line. The first is just the architect having a laugh at the players expense, very clever and all that but a great way of pissing them off, the second is a challenge.

As a group we seem to pretty down on long grass as a fun killer, why not design tricks that cheat the golfer who has hit the ball he wanted too ?  

Niall

[Kyle Harris]

It allows the golfer to suspend disbelief about the contrived nature of the golf course. In my opinion, this is a good thing and lends much to the golf experience.

[Adam Clayman]

When done properly, the golfer is given a clue that the deceptive feature is there. Now it's up to the golfer to recognize it.

Counter intuitiveness is another great way to identify the unaware.

[Niall C]

Kyle

I think you're referring to a different type of camouflage, one where the hand of man is disguised to look like nature. I'm all for that, mind you I don't necessarily object to obvious man made landscapes either.

Adam

Interesting idea, do you think that the architect can really be that subtle so as to judge what will give the golfer a clue and what will totally mislead ?

Niall

[Kyle Harris]

Niall,

I am in a sense, but I do believe there can be significant overlap.

Take bunker placement as an example. By tying an influential bunker into the landscape in order to hide the hand of man (perhaps with other out of play bunkers), the golf architect can obfuscate the "in-play" bunker.

Widening play corridors, which I believe makes the golfer view golf course features as reference points as opposed to mowing or tree lines, eliminated a contrived edge while also bringing features more to the forefront of the golfers eye.

I believe the key to all of this is to make the golfer believe, or willing to believe, that the golf course had little influence from man to be created. Once that leap is made in the golfer's mind, any camouflage used to influence play can be that much more decisive.

[Josh Tarble]

The camouflage is usually only deceptive for the first time player of the course.

Mike, I'm going to agree with Scott on this quote here. IMO, the best use of the features are where the golfer KNOWS a bunker/hazard is not necessarily in play, but because it looks like it is, it causes hesitation and a poor swing.

I do think Ross was one of the best at this...at nearly every Ross course I've played, his use of bunkers is fantastic.  Many are placed away from the green, but shaped so they are very intimidating.  He uses fairway bunkering to a similar affect as well.

[Jud_T]

Josh,

I agree.  Visual deception is a great tool of the trade.  Even if you've got a lasered yardage it still puts that seed of doubt in your head when a confident swing is needed.  I particularly like bunkers that that appear to be greenside but are actually 25-50 yards short of the green, which is surprising given my wont for running the ball up.  Or standing over a wedge shot that you know plays 110 but appears to be 75 and over is dead.

[Kyle Harris]

Fool the yardage lasers, place slightly-taller-than-flagstick-height objects behind the green.

 

[Niall C]

Josh,

I agree.  Visual deception is a great tool of the trade.  Even if you've got a lasered yardage it still puts that seed of doubt in your head when a confident swing is needed.  I particularly like bunkers that that appear to be greenside but are actually 25-50 yards short of the green, which is surprising given my wont for running the ball up.  Or standing over a wedge shot that you know plays 110 but appears to be 75 and over is dead.

Jud

Are you suggesting maybe that this type of deception is one for the modern age where perhaps the use of distance aids is presumed ?

Niall

[Dave McCollum]

I have played only two of DM Kidd’s courses—Bandon Dunes and Huntsman Springs—but Huntsman seemed a striking example of visual deception.  Many times during the round the correct line of play looked exactly the opposite.  For example, a bunker on a ridge that completely hides a wide landing area beyond.  On greens playing away from pins and using the contours to get close.  Of course Huntsman was totally manufactured on top of a mountain meadow (a swampy bog really) and is a very impressive work of imagination and execution, along the likes of Shadow Creek, IMO.
 
 A personal anecdote about Huntsman:  I played it in a 2-man scramble with a shotgun start.  We happened to get paired with a pro and his superintendent.  Those two spent a good deal of time critiquing the course and design, mostly unfavorably and focusing on the obvious cost of it all.  Finally, after about 16 holes of listening to this, we were standing on tee box and chatting about how to play a hole.  The DZ of the obvious line ended in a very narrow section of fairway pinched-in between a hazard and a dune or bunker—the very essence of a risk/reward route to the green.  The pro complained about this “unfair” feature.  I’d never seen or played the hole before, but I’d seen enough of the visual deception going on that I bet the pro a six pack that an alternate line over a ridge-line group of bunkers would reveal a wide, hidden landing zone.  He took the bet and lost.  Unfortunately, they didn’t sell beer in the house (Mormon owners).  (Due to the shotgun start, I’m not sure which hole it was.)
 
The point being that the pro and his super mostly misunderstood what the architect was doing with the design.  They won the event from the middle tees we were playing, but the pro had played the course a couple of weeks before and apparently got a full dose the challenges from the tips.  Guess he was still smarting from getting beat up the first time around.  FWIW, I thought it was one of the most strategic and interesting designs I’ve played as well as an amazing feat of hydrological engineering.  It is a fun, playable track despite having some form of water on something like 16 of 18 holes.  It’s really worth seeing and well worth the drive to this isolated destination.  Yeah, there is much eye candy and big budget excess on display that will probably render this course as a billionaire developer’s work of art and will require substantial years of subsidy to exist, so see it while you can.

[Dave McCollum]

I just looked at Huntsman’s website.
 
http://www.huntsmansprings.com/

I think the hole I described is #14.  As for the water and wetlands, make that 17 of 18 holes. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

the third green at Moray Old is raised quite a bit into the air making it not only a skyline green but also look at least 1.5 to 2 clubs closer than it really is. The green at the 4th is so small that it always looks much further away than it really is. Are these poorly designed? Not in my book but you are of course free to disagree

Jon

PS. how about a game next month?

[Tom_Doak]

It allows the golfer to suspend disbelief about the contrived nature of the golf course. In my opinion, this is a good thing and lends much to the golf experience.

This was going to be my response.

A lot of "deception" in architecture is accidental, though some is very well thought out.  If your perception of whether it's good or not hinges on the difference, then you are a poseur, because in most cases you will never know the truth.

[Sean_A]

At first I thought the question was for a lark.  Now that it seems clear the question was asked in earnest, I just don't know what to say other than I am miles apart from Niall on what constitutes good architecture.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()