An appreciation of Golf Course Architecture

[Don_Mahaffey]

There seems to be a belief that if a golfer doesn't know much about architecture, then he probably can't appreciate good architecture, or recognize poor architecture. "He doesn't get it" is a term we often hear.

I'm not so sure about that premise. I may not know much about building architecture or interior design, but I enjoy a meal at a nice restaurant that gets the traffic flow, the lighting, and sound proofing just right. I like seeing other people, but hearing every fork hit the plate or every chair scratch across the floor is not what I enjoy. I like to see the menu and the person I'm dining with, but I don't like glare, needing a pen light to read the menu, or feeling like I'm being interrogated.  Well designed lighting sets a nice mood. Throw in great food and good service and it adds up to a very enjoyable night out. I don't know what they did to manage the noise, what kind of lighting they used,or how the design of the structure facilitated getting the smaller details right, but I appreciate it.

I think golfers do as well. They may not care to break down the strategy of every hole or analyze the routing, but I do believe they walk away from well designed golf course with an unstated appreciation for the architecture. And maybe they get it more than the experts. They are there to play, not analyze, critique, or measure. Usually for them,  just a thumbs up, or thumbs down, and I do not believe it is just about the cart girl or the pretty grass.

[Adam Lawrence]

I'd like to believe that, and in my more optimistic moments, I do, but (like many here I suspect) I've heard too many complaints about features I think are brilliant and too much praise of long, straight and penal holes as 'demanding a really good drive' to agree wholeheartedly....

[Jeb Bearer]

I honestly think it depends at least in part on what level of golfer were talking about. Low handicappers tend to want the course to be a "championship test", without regard for strategy or lesser golfers. I've played with a lot of good players who seem to think that any hole can be improved if you just "put a pond there". Conversely, high handicappers, in my experience, are likely to enjoy themselves more on courses that give them a chance. Ideally, a great course will combine both, challenging the golfer and motivating him to improve, while giving the struggling player a chance at least to get around without losing a ton of balls.

I also think, at least here in the States, that many golfers are suckers for the green, ultra manicured look, and such a presentation can make up for a lot of flaws in the design.

[Jason Thurman]

Don, it raises an interesting point that we too often ignore on this forum.

I think the ultimate measure of a golf course is the enjoyment it provides to those who play it. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter if those playing know anything about architecture and theory or not. At the end of the day, if a feature on a course creates mostly good vibes, then it's good architecture (provided that it's constructed well enough to be in playable condition). If a feature mostly detracts from the day of the person who sees it, then it's bad architecture.

Now, reductionist thinkers would take that last statement and assume that really penal features are bad because they detract from the experience of people who hit into them, but that's just wrong. For instance, almost all golfers love the Road Hole bunker. Avoiding it is a real accomplishment for most, and escaping from it is an even greater one. Remove that feature, and the satisfaction of playing the Road Hole well is greatly diminished. Good architecture is about creating enjoyment in all forms: fun, sense of accomplishment, suspense, drama, being in tune with your surroundings and away from daily distractions, overcoming challenges, etc. Just as much (or more) joy can be gained from avoiding a feature as from interacting with it.

When architecture works well, it appeals to the player without them even understanding why. The best example of this for me is Lawsonia. Everyone I know who has played it just raves about how "fun" it is. That includes a few people on this forum, but mostly just weekend muni-players that I met when I lived in Madison for a few years. Almost no one could tell me that they loved it because of how the strategy and risk/reward works off the tee, or because of the interest around the greens. But they knew they really loved playing there.

On the flip side though, plenty of people also love playing tough "championship" layouts. And those guys aren't wrong. There's room in golf for every kind of architecture. The one advantage that those who study architecture a bit have over those who don't is that we might actually know what features we like and don't like, and why, as opposed to just assuming that water makes holes good because one of our buddies told us so once. Most golfers know what they like when they play it, but can't describe why they like it or draw any meaningful conclusions about architecture concepts from the holes they enjoy most.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - I think you're right. On my subjective-objective thread, I mused (and have begun to really believe) that we ALL "see" pretty much exactly the same thing -- but it's just that we use different language to express what we see (and then don't realize or forget that we are doing that -- i.e. we forget that the differences we are arguing about aren't really differences, and that we are merely confusing WORDS/symbols/language with the all-important realities/experience which the words are meant to represent). I think the vast majority of golfers do indeed walk away, as you put it so well, with an "unstated appreciation of the architecture".

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

I'd like to believe that, and in my more optimistic moments, I do, but (like many here I suspect) I've heard too many complaints about features I think are brilliant and too much praise of long, straight and penal holes as 'demanding a really good drive' to agree wholeheartedly....

Adam:

Part of what Don is saying is that the golfers don't necessarily know what they like, they just know they liked it (or disliked it).  When pressed to explain why they liked / disliked it, they tend to fall back on whatever they've heard before ... and since they haven't read Tom Simpson's book, they are stuck with praising the "good driving holes" as they've heard on TV.

[Stephen Davis]

I think the last three comments are spot on! I don't often get the chance to play golf with people who are knowledgable about course architecture, however, it seems to me that many of the people I have played with have a good idea of a quality course. It is the "why" that they lack; the ability to verbalize what makes a hole or a course a quality one. Tom, is right that the people I have been with will then default into what they have heard on tv so as to not give the impression that they are without knowledge on the subject. The only problem is it is often the tv announcers who have gotten it wrong

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don, good subject, and I like to be optimistic.  

As family therapists will tell you, its hard when you expect someone to love you your way, not their way.  So, if golfers like my courses, I take it as a compliment and move on, figuring I had done something right.  In most cases, they just sort of like the ambiance of a place and cannot desribe too much what they like or dislike.  

As a result, my designs try to focus on ambiance.  Many here wouldn't consider ambiance to be a prime design criteria, but that opinion would seem not to jive with the majority of the golfing public, for whom that seems to be the prime driver of course enjoyment.

However, in the cases of golfers making specific comments to me about individual holes, they comment that they are either difficult, beautiful, or unusual.  I think low handicappers do focus a bit more on the difficult, higher handicappers on the beauty.  All golfers will comment in different ways on unusual, but usually in some sort of negative tone.  Not sure exactly what that says about the regcognition of golf architecture, other than most of it seems rather standard and within an expected realm.

I can recall only a small percentage of golfers who have commented on strategy and then, it was clear none of them had read any of the classic books on the subject, as the ideas were geared more towards how it fit their game - as in "I want to drive it well away from the water, but then have the best angle into the green...."  Fewer still focus on balance and that kind of thing.

Lastly, is it really any different here?  I have always found it hard to get a philosophical discussion going here, but everyone can debate whether they like "Hell's Half Acre" or not.  Most folks need a specific course or hole to react to, and they don't spend any time thinking about the philosophical underpinnings of why and how it came to be.

[Kevin Lynch]

I'm not so sure about that premise. I may not know much about building architecture or interior design, but I enjoy a meal at a nice restaurant that gets the traffic flow, the lighting, and sound proofing just right. I like seeing other people, but hearing every fork hit the plate or every chair scratch across the floor is not what I enjoy. I like to see the menu and the person I'm dining with, but I don't like glare, needing a pen light to read the menu, or feeling like I'm being interrogated.  Well designed lighting sets a nice mood. Throw in great food and good service and it adds up to a very enjoyable night out. I don't know what they did to manage the noise, what kind of lighting they used,or how the design of the structure facilitated getting the smaller details right, but I appreciate it.

In your example, I think your description still demonstrates a deeper contemplation of the architecture.  You are thinking about how the lighting and sound management adds to your dining experience.  While you may not know exactly how it was accomplished, you know it is beyond more than just how the food tastes.  With golf architecture, I like to think about all the elements of strategy and design features, but I can't contemplate all the earth-moving and drainage complexities involved (that seems more similar to your dining example).


Now, as Pat said, there are some people who would experience the discomfort of a loud or poorly lit restaurant, without being able to explain why.  They may say something like "the food's good, but there's just something I don't like about going there."  These may be the people you were thinking about, and you'd be correct that there is some unconscious appreciation.  Before I learned more about the "art" of routing through this forum, I knew I liked the feel of certain courses, without being able to articulate why.


But, then you still have those situations like Jeb & Adam describe, where there is a complete missing of the point on certain features.  These aren't the people who subconsciously appreciate the architecture.  Rather, these are the ones who seem to boil down the many complexities of architecture to one or two non-strategic characteristics.
- "It's a great course, so lush & green"
- "It's a great course, water comes into play on 16 holes"
- "I hate that course, there are uneven lies in the fairway"
- "I hate that hole. It's ridiculous that they put a bunker in the middle of the fairway.  If you hit it straight, you shouldn't be punished" (unfortunate verbatim quote last month)
- "The back nine is great - but it needs more trees"
- Perhaps In anticipation of the 2014 US Open "the course was in horrible shape, looked brown and didn't have any rough"

When people on this board refer to the "don't get it" crowd, I think they're referring to the Jeb & Adam's group, not Peter's group.

I play with a number of friends, all with varying degrees of GCA appreciation.  Some fall in Peter's group, while others are the latter (e.g. my anti-centerline hazard friend).  I'll talk with them about the strategies and why I like (or don't like) certain holes / courses, if they're interested (I usually warn them ahead of time).  Perhaps some will then articulate why they like certain courses, or perhaps the center-line hazard hater will remember that there may be a strategy / options involved (beyond the architect just being a jerk).

[Mike Policano]

Jeff,

A wise man once told me, "it is not about the reasons".  You like something or you don't or you are indifferent.  The 'reasons' are just explanations of why one thinks they like something or not.  Most people don't start with the reasons and then conclude whether they like something or not.

When you ask most golfers whether they like a course after playing it, they struggle with the 'reasons'.  They just know they like it or not.  Since we are not philosophical here, Iike you, I won't ask if it matters whether they can explain it.

Cheers

[Jason Thurman]

- "I hate that hole. It's ridiculous that they put a bunker in the middle of the fairway.  If you hit it straight, you shouldn't be punished" (unfortunate verbatim quote last month)

I have a friend who has said the same thing. Yet, his favorite hole in the state is a 490 yard par 5 with three centerline bunkers. I've never pressed him to reconcile those two facts.

[Jud_T]

I know exactly why I like the courses I do.  Because GCA tells me to....   

[Kevin Lynch]

- "I hate that hole. It's ridiculous that they put a bunker in the middle of the fairway.  If you hit it straight, you shouldn't be punished" (unfortunate verbatim quote last month)

I have a friend who has said the same thing. Yet, his favorite hole in the state is a 490 yard par 5 with three centerline bunkers. I've never pressed him to reconcile those two facts.

Not knowing your friend, it may be because it's a reachable Par 5.  He's willing to tolerate the hazard because it's an easy chance to make birdie if he misses the hazard (and still get save par if he's in it).

If it were a 490 yard Par 4, he might redirect his focus to the centerline hazard he hates.

(I guess that discussion may belong on a "does par matter?" or "does regulation matter?" thread).

[Jason Thurman]

I'm sure that's part of it, Kevin, but there are lots of those. He specifically has said that he likes the way the hazards make a player choose a direction to play off the tee.

But then, weeks later, I'll hear him lamenting that "the fairway should always be a safe place to hit the ball."

I'm sure he's never taken the time to realize that one of his favorite holes proves that he doesn't actually believe that statement.

[Neal_Meagher]

In a way, both Don and the esteemed Mr. Brauer are saying much the same thing, that golfers are attracted to a course for what Mr. Brauer calls "ambiance" like me and my wife are attracted to restaurants as Don is for much the same reason.  If the lighting and everything else is right to compliment the food then we probably will like it.

With golf courses I agree that ambiance is a difficult thing to produce or comprehend.  But I think these things are at the top of the list for what creates it:

- A natural setting that is conducive to pleasant golf holes situated well on the land.

- A sense of calm that is introduced from the millisecond the golfer arrives at the facility, be it a club or public course.

- A logical flow of circulation from parking lot to and within the clubhouse structure.

- A clubhouse facility that is of some familiar architectural style, hopefully within the vernacular architectural language of the place itself.

- Friendly but not over-the-top personnel in both the pro shop (golf shop for some) and the restaurant/lounge.  Especially the lounge.

- A well-integrated 1st hole that feels like a natural extension of the clubhouse environs.

- Holes that present a good mix of obvious challenge at first glance from the tee and some that are head-scratchers but are understood after playing them.

- A mix of holes that are open and closed.  By that, holes that are naturally enclosed by, say, forest, and some that are much more open, prairie-like. 

- A distinct lack of off-putting elements of artifice such as nearby airports, freeways, overhead electrical lines, homes (ok, Pebble Beach has "homes" but they really aren't "homes" like most of us live in), disjointed routings that are governmentally created to avoid wetlands and the like, and internal O.B. markers.

- And did I mention that the lounge should have pleasant personnel?  And a good selection of tequila for Gib, well-aged red Bordeaux for Goodale, the best mezcal available for Patrick Kiser, a ridiculously creative craft cocktail menu for me (ok, I'm still waiting to see that one at ANY golf course) and chairs made for sitting and relaxing, ceiling heights that are not too low nor too high that may feature large beams, windows big enough to see out to the golf course's finishing hole, a series of large doors that lead from the lounge to an inviting patio that includes a fire-pit and seating that also overlooks said finishing hole and a selection of putters and balls leaning about in every nook and cranny for impromptu night putting.

Hmmmm, odd that the biggest criteria here revolves around the lounge?

[Sean_A]

There seems to be a belief that if a golfer doesn't know much about architecture, then he probably can't appreciate good architecture, or recognize poor architecture. "He doesn't get it" is a term we often hear.

I'm not so sure about that premise. I may not know much about building architecture or interior design, but I enjoy a meal at a nice restaurant that gets the traffic flow, the lighting, and sound proofing just right. I like seeing other people, but hearing every fork hit the plate or every chair scratch across the floor is not what I enjoy. I like to see the menu and the person I'm dining with, but I don't like glare, needing a pen light to read the menu, or feeling like I'm being interrogated.  Well designed lighting sets a nice mood. Throw in great food and good service and it adds up to a very enjoyable night out. I don't know what they did to manage the noise, what kind of lighting they used,or how the design of the structure facilitated getting the smaller details right, but I appreciate it.

I think golfers do as well. They may not care to break down the strategy of every hole or analyze the routing, but I do believe they walk away from well designed golf course with an unstated appreciation for the architecture. And maybe they get it more than the experts. They are there to play, not analyze, critique, or measure. Usually for them,  just a thumbs up, or thumbs down, and I do not believe it is just about the cart girl or the pretty grass.

Don

Whats a well designed golf course?  Some people may point toward the engineering side as most important and others the architectural features.  Given the amount of rain England has had these past 8 months and its easily understandable why engineering can be seen as most important - tee hee.  Of course, with the features there is an ocean between concepts, but I would argue all are good if used in the right spot and and sparingly.  So I guess we have to talk about flow/rhythm because for the layman thats about all he can discern from a routing.   

I think most folks like, dislike or are ambivalent about courses then look for reasons to back up the opinion if challenged.  That sounds like an appreciation of design even if its only a matter of a course being pretty (not something which should be dismissed lightly!).  More importantly, I think most folks think about the value a course delivers for the money.  Its not a favourable thing to discuss on this enlightened board, but budgets are real world stuff.

Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

More importantly, I think most folks think about the value a course delivers for the money.  Its not a favourable thing to discuss on this enlightened board, but budgets are real world stuff.
 

Sean:

The problem with discussing "value for the money" is that it no longer has any connection to what's been built.  It is only based on how capitalistic the ownership of the course is, and after that, on how much people are willing to pay -- which is SUPPOSED to represent value, but we all know it's an imperfect system, because ego and marketing and all those people P.T. Barnum spoke of are involved.

I think you'd feel differently if you had built a couple of inexpensive courses that now cost over $200 to play.  On the one level, it's troubling, but why punish them for their success?

[jeffwarne]

More importantly, I think most folks think about the value a course delivers for the money.  Its not a favourable thing to discuss on this enlightened board, but budgets are real world stuff.
 

Sean:

The problem with discussing "value for the money" is that it no longer has any connection to what's been built.  It is only based on how capitalistic the ownership of the course is, and after that, on how much people are willing to pay -- which is SUPPOSED to represent value, but we all know it's an imperfect system, because ego and marketing and all those people P.T. Barnum spoke of are involved.

I think you'd feel differently if you had built a couple of inexpensive courses that now cost over $200 to play.  On the one level, it's troubling, but why punish them for their success?

But Tom,
Those courses still represent great value for money, given who they compete against.

I find the experience is nearly almost always enhanced with a good value for money equation, not just in the money you save, and the feeling of not being taken advantage of, but more importantly in the people you meet and the culture of the club.
There is no substitute for a Pennard,a Brora, a Portsalon where the prices are supervalue, courses are top tier and the members are thrilled to see you, and getting a tee time is easy.
No doubt Silloth and multiple "Arblegems" fall into this category,

Which is why I've always strived to maintain such a culture at the the clubs I've worked at which happen to fall at the other end of the  spectrum

[Adam Clayman]

PeterP, Do people really see the same thing? Aren't we all pre-disposed to our own individual myopia?

Mike P. Sometimes asking a person whose never been asked before, "why", opens their eyes to becoming a bit more sophisticated.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't see discussing "value for the money" from the Owners point at all.  They must obviously react to what golfers percieve as value, but its clearly a user created sentiment, again, one from the gut, which is as pure a motive as there can be, really.

I always felt part of the success of my most successful courses like GR, FB, and some mid priced courses I did around DFW was that golfers felt like they were getting $100 courses for $45-90.  And, not a lot of that had to do with maintenance, service, etc.  It was that ill defined "good design" that they liked, because none of those courses really rely on fancy service or drop dead maintenance.

That said, it was all crystalized to me by a golfer at Giants Ridge one day who summed it all up:  "I like these courses better anyway, but when you add in that I can bring my clients here, and golf them, sleep them, and feed them for less than the greens fees in Brainerd, its a slam dunk!"  In fact, I would suggest that we sort of hit the sweet spot kind of by accident - in the North Woods, anythng too fancy just doesn't seem to fit the ambiance they are looking for.

Even as an architect, I take great pride in the owners side of helping present a formerly country club only type course to the golfer at an affordable $45 or so.  As Jerry Seinfeld might say, "Not that theres anything wrong with that."  I mean, whats more noble as an architect?  Building one critically acclaimed course after another that critics love (often largely for name brand reasons) or building a string of courses "you could play everyday" in easy to access locales, that golfers love, even if they don't know exactly why?

Put another way, based on record sales alone, the Beatles are the best band ever, even if critics can find some obscure band with more sophisticated tunes and lyrics.  Or, simply put, the masses can almost never, by definition, be all wrong, no matter what the tastemakers try to declare, can they?

[Jud_T]

We've been over this, but you simply can't have value in the equation when deciding best courses, that's personal and geographical.  Rustic Canyon at $66 on the weekend in LA is a phenomenal value, but it's more than a 50% premium over Wild Horse, which is yet again more than double Spring Valley.  So all else being equal is Spring Vallley 3x the course that Rustic is?  Hardly, even though that's where some might find the most value/dollar on a daily basis.  Best to have a Top 100 list, or a State list, or a bunch of local favorites, then each individual can filter for their own preferences and pocketbook.  If some shmuck is willing to pay whatever he can to fill out his top 100 wall plaque well, hey it's a free country, or at least it used to be.  Unless it's a subsidized muni facility, each course will charge what the market can bear, or what price point they think best suits their objectives in the long run.  People still choose to play Pebble at roughly double what it costs at Pac Dunes, and Whistling Straights at 4x Lawsonia.  To each his own.  I used to keep a spreadsheet of potential clubs I might join, adjusted for convenience, ratings and value.  But each of those categories and weightings is exclusive to me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Really, why take this back to rankings?  Why not just talk about why we enjoy golf courses.  "Real Golfers" factor in value.  They cannot help it, because its simply a ranking, if you will, of whether a course is worthy of spending their hard earned money there. 

That said, it could very well be that Rustic at 2X Wildhorse in actual dollars is a better value, given the cost of stuff in CA.  Or way more when you figure the cost of the trip from LA to Nebraska!  Value, like design, is something golfers feel on a gut basis, and that may even vary from day to day.  Here in DFW, many golfers play Cowboys at $180 once per year, and think that is worth that much of their golf budget, but may spend 10X at one of my other courses, and feel that is equal value.  Obviously, most will play mostly cheaper courses most days (or closest) but place high value on a few times a year playing upscale courses, and once a year, going on a golf vacation.  So, which do they value most?  Everyday play or once a year vacatoin?  Its all good, no?

[Jud_T]

Yes,

Sorry, I kind of lumped the value concept in with the ratings thread.  But even on a local level it's the same thing.  I may choose to drive an hour to pay $18 to walk a course that I think is a ton of fun and great value while another guy happily shells out $75,000 down and $10k a year at a name private club and only gets 10 rounds a year in.  Both are valid models and neither of us is more right or wrong.  Otherwise market forces will take care of the disparity as we've seen over the past few years.  Point is, yes the average guy appreciates value, but that has to be separate from his/her appreciation of GCA for the purposes of a meaningful discussion.  Otherwise you're debating fruit salad.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, value is hard to rank, and subject to each, and often variable among each person.

But, it sounds like you are a scientific evaluator, not a "feel" kinda guy.  Like you say, no one is right or wrong.  I'm just saying perhaps 99% of golfers don't feel the need to analyze it all that heavy!  He appreciates value, but has to like the course, first and foremost, to see ANY value in it at all.  Playing a course you don't like for fee only is not value seeking, its being cheap!

[Rick Baril]

I often wonder if golfers separate "architecture/design" from maintenance and management.  

Don, your restaurant analogy highlights all things working together to provide the experience.  I wonder  if the food or service was bad, if the table was unclean, the floor dirty or the service disorganized  (management and maintenance issues); do you think you would separate, and still recognize & appreciate the "architecture and interior design" of the restaurant?  

Or, maybe an alternative question:  Does the maintenance/management of the restaurant/golf course influence and define the experience for the average diner/golfer, to a greater extent than the architecture/design?

I like your restaurant analogy because I feel I can be more objective.  So, using your analogy, I tend to frequent restaurants for different reasons – and in this order of preference:
1.   for the food – (almost) regardless of atmosphere (atmosphere meaning architecture/design - with a nod to service)
2.   for atmosphere - and accept the food may be of a lesser quality
3.   for the full package - food, service, ambiance

*In thinking about the above, it’s difficult for me to completely isolate the architecture/design from the management/service.  So, if this is an “average diner” profile, does this mean the average golfer has a similar preference hierarchy?