7 deadly sins of design

[Mac Plumart]

http://planetgolfusa.com/index.php?id=1824

From Darius Oliver's website.  Thoughts?

For quick reference, here they are...

1. Too long and too difficult
2. Too difficult to walk
3.  Too expensive
4.  Too hard to maintain
5.  Too many hazards and/or too much shaping
6.  Lack of originality
7.  Lack of great holes

[Jason Walker]

http://planetgolfusa.com/index.php?id=1824

From Darius Oliver's website.  Thoughts?

For quick reference, here they are...

1. Too long and too difficult
2. Too difficult to walk
3.  Too expensive
4.  Too hard to maintain
5.  Too many hazards and/or too much shaping
6.  Lack of originality
7.  Lack of great holes

Nothing like an objective set of criteria to clear things up.

Edit---should have read the link as there are more details there.

[Bill Gayne]

I would add doesn't drain.

[Tom_Doak]

For fun, I googled "seven deadly sins of design," to see if there were some better lists pertaining to design in general.  Got nowhere with that, but then I tried "seven deadly sins of architecture," and found a good list from a bunch of grad students at Washington State University:

1.  Fatness
2.  Separateness
3.  Messiness
4.  Bigness
5.  Sameness
6.  Flatness
7.  Vagueness

The only one of these that I have trouble applying to modern golf course architecture is vagueness.

The most important of these, which Darius didn't really include, is BIGNESS.  The trend I've noticed the most over the years is that all the award-winning courses of recent years are built at the biggest possible scale.  My courses are as guilty of this as any; that's one reason they've won a bunch of awards.  But, I'm convinced that bigness is ultimately a bad thing for the game of golf. 

We have to maintain much greater areas of ground than the old courses did, because there is no overlap between holes -- no parallel fairway where you can find your wayward drive.  Courses are so spread out that the maintenance regime of the day involves 15 crewmen, each with their own vehicle.  Environmentally, this has all been sold as a win, because the golf course is maintaining +/- 100 acres of "habitat" ground that is a benefit to the community ... but ultimately a drain on the golfers' pocketbooks.

Some pieces of property [like, anything in the Sand Hills] have a big scale of their own, and it would be crazy to try and design a "small" course in a vast landscape.  But the success of those courses has led to almost ALL modern courses being designed at a big scale, whether or not it's appropriate to the site.

You could lump 7500-yard tees into this sin as well, but they are only a part of the problem.

[Mac Plumart]

GREAT point, Tom.

I actually played Sage Valley (modern design) and Aiken Golf Club and Augusta CC(classic designs)on back-to-back days recently.  My playing partners commented how BIG Sage Valley was.  And they didn't mean long, they meant big as in the entirety of the property and how the holes were isolated from each other...thereby requiring more land.

[Matthew Runde]

I would add:

8. Insipidity

This ties in with #7, but may be applied more generally, as well.  A lack of compelling hazards and little need of shotmaking produce boring rounds.

[Ben Malach]

Tom

I think that list hits the nail on the head. If you take the first one out and replace it with length. But as with all rules some all rule if broken in the right way can work. As you mentioned with Sand Hills and size.

[Ben Sims]

I read the list and wanted to say out loud, 'DUH!'  Darius has written a timely and effective article.  But this topic deserves more than magazine articles and blog posts.  This topic deserves hard air time, it deserves a book to two by guys named Nicklaus and Reilly and Feinstein. 

It's one thing for Oliver, Kostis, and Tom to write snippets about slow play, unsustainable maintenance, and bigness.  It's awesome that there are important people that get the issues facing golf courses.  But it's entirely another for the golf complex as a whole to recognize why these issues are important.  I'm not convinced that enough golfers care.  And in any business, unless the market drives changes, the service providers and businesses in that field won't be forced to change.  What's going to force everyone to really notice the things on Darius' list?

[Mike_Young]

You could sort of use the Biblical list as well ..these items drove the development side of the business and created the product as we know it today.

    1 Lust-   
    2 Gluttony- 
    3 Greed
    4 Sloth
    5 Wrath
    6 Envy
    7 Pride

[Sean_A]

While I definitely agree BIGNESS is a long term problem for golf partly because of what the fallout in maintenance/walkability/length, but it is also an issue in terms of LESSER designs not getting a look in.  By that I mean any idea other than the 7000+ yard 18 holer is a no go.  No thought is given to the viability of 9, 12 or even 14 hole courses or the 6000 yard 18 holer.  THis is the direction golf needs to go in - definitely away from BIG destination courses which require long journeys to arrive. 

Someone mentioned it previously, but other than BIGNESS, I would say WETNESS is a huge problem with courses.  Not only is anything less than dry not ideal for proper golf, but its a waste of resources at a time when golf should be seen to be conserving resources for PR reasons.  I am positive that the day is coming when courses will not be given access to enough water to keep healthy.  I spose this fits in with FATNESS. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

I read once where someone suggested that the greatest sin in the world is the determination to see sin wherever one looks. I think we've fallen into the same error when it comes to design/architecture, i.e. seeing courses as too long and too hard (even though every golfer is free to play from a set of tees/a course that is neither of those); judging golf as too expensive (while there are many, many courses, everywhere that there are golfers, that are still very reasonably priced, though perhaps not so highly ranked); and complaining constantly about a lack of greatness and/or originality (and thereby acknowledging that, for all our so-called love of the game, we aren't satisfied with the merely good, but demand instead great golf as the measuring stick).  It stikes me as a bit of me-and-my-friends journalism (as when, if you read some of the writers from the NY Times, you'd think that the most important thing in everyone's life there is finding the best co-op apartmenet for under $5.5 million). It's a sign of the very sin/disease we complain about to make this topic so darned precious -- I can't imagine those who designed/built the hundreds of so-called average/tier-two English courses -- modest, well-draining, understated and inexpensive inland courses that have provided fun and challenge and excercise and interest for a hundred years -- taking either themselves or those courses so seriously. They just did good, simple work on a sane budget....and everything else took care of itself. Go and do likewise, gentlemen....for everything else is merely vanity and a striving after the wind.  

Peter  

[Sean_A]

and complaining about a lack of greatness and/or originality (thereby acknowledging that, for all our so-called love of the game, we aren't satisfied with good golf, but demand instead great golf as the measuring stick).  

Pietro

No question about it.  Far too many folks on this board and in the golf media focus way too much on greatness rather then "good enough".  While I do think practically any course on any terrain can have at least some flair and that many do fall short of this, there are many courses which are good; good enough for the likes of any 5, 10 or 20 capper to enjoy and be challenged and usually for a reasonable green fee.  The art of seeking out the next greatest course is a disease which rankings perpetuate.

Ciao 

[Mike_Young]

The biggest flaw in any design whether it be golf or vertical structures is in not fulfilling it's use.  IMHO the main thought that everyone on this site uses for a basis is whether or not a course is known nationally.  15,900 courses in the USA don't care.  That's not their purpose and if every architect goes out there feeling as though he has failed if the course he is working on doesn't acquire national attention then he will be miserable.  Do you guys really believe that Johnny Cochran would be your best criminal lawyer or is their a local lawyer that you know who could do a better job?  Would you guys use one of the "Top 10 Plastic surgeons" from an "in flight" magazine ad or do you happen to know a good local guy?  The signature architect in most cases became famous because a RE developer used their golfing notoriety to promote his development not because of his extraordinary design abilities.  For many of us in this business we continue to do our thing and if the right piece of land with the right budget comes along then so be it but if not, so what.
We got to quit focusing on " the greatest" when we discuss golf design here.  It makes you shun a lot of good golf.

[Joe Hancock]

I don't have anything significant to add to this discussion except for a "thank you" to the posters thus far. Good reminders of what we ought to be striving for as opportunities present themselves.

Joe

[Steve Lang]

  thanks to you Joe... and to support that, we're going to do our best to play The Mines on our way to Blue Lake this summer and enjoy the whole thing again, especially those par 3's and negotiating those greens !

Hope you and family are doin fine.

steve & sheila

[Ronald Montesano]

7. Vagueness

could be applied to gca as "what was he thinking?" or "what do I do here?" or "what shot should I play here?" or "other than the dwarf grass, is this a putting green?"

[Tom_Doak]

7. Vagueness

could be applied to gca as "what was he thinking?" or "what do I do here?" or "what shot should I play here?" or "other than the dwarf grass, is this a putting green?"

Yes, but getting the player to think about "what shot should I play here?" is a good thing in design, as far as I'm concerned, not a sin.

[Ed Brzezowski]

I love the "envy" sin.  Just because it worked at North Berwick and NGLA doesn't mean it will work everywhere. Why do some designers try to fit a classic design onto ground that does not work for the hole? Good Lord I sound like Melvyn.

[Paul Gray]

I love the "envy" sin.  Just because it worked at North Berwick and NGLA doesn't mean it will work everywhere. Why do some designers try to fit a classic design onto ground that does not work for the hole? Good Lord I sound like Melvyn.

Quite.

The attempt at re-producing well-known holes with hopelessly different materials is the most futile nonsense of the lot......No; I firmly believe that the only means whereby an attractive piece of ground can be turned into a satisfying golf course is to work to the natural features of the site in question. Develop them if necessary, but not too much; and if there are many nice features, leave them alone as far as possible, but utilise them to their fullest extent - Harry Colt

I remain in awe of Colt's simplistic brilliance.

 

[William_G]

and complaining about a lack of greatness and/or originality (thereby acknowledging that, for all our so-called love of the game, we aren't satisfied with good golf, but demand instead great golf as the measuring stick).  

Pietro

No question about it.  Far too many folks on this board and in the golf media focus way too much on greatness rather then "good enough".  While I do think practically any course on any terrain can have at least some flair and that many do fall short of this, there are many courses which are good; good enough for the likes of any 5, 10 or 20 capper to enjoy and be challenged and usually for a reasonable green fee.  The art of seeking out the next greatest course is a disease which rankings perpetuate.

Ciao 

a sin in and of itself

[Matt MacIver]

7. Vagueness

could be applied to gca as "what was he thinking?" or "what do I do here?" or "what shot should I play here?" or "other than the dwarf grass, is this a putting green?"

Yes, but getting the player to think about "what shot should I play here?" is a good thing in design, as far as I'm concerned, not a sin.

Sure, so Vagueness being no strategy, or anti-strategy.  Perhaps framing bunkers or aiming bunkers, or wild contours on a portion of a green which serve no purpose?  Or waterfalls...

[Mike_Young]

And yet Vagueness can often be a very subtle strategy.   

[Mac Plumart]

I read the list and wanted to say out loud, 'DUH!'  Darius has written a timely and effective article.  But this topic deserves more than magazine articles and blog posts.  This topic deserves hard air time, it deserves a book to two by guys named Nicklaus and Reilly and Feinstein. 

It's one thing for Oliver, Kostis, and Tom to write snippets about slow play, unsustainable maintenance, and bigness.  It's awesome that there are important people that get the issues facing golf courses.  But it's entirely another for the golf complex as a whole to recognize why these issues are important.  I'm not convinced that enough golfers care.  And in any business, unless the market drives changes, the service providers and businesses in that field won't be forced to change.  What's going to force everyone to really notice the things on Darius' list?

I find this post excellent.

Any comments on Ben's final question?

[Ken Moum]

GREAT point, Tom.

I actually played Sage Valley (modern design) and Aiken Golf Club and Augusta CC(classic designs)on back-to-back days recently.  My playing partners commented how BIG Sage Valley was.  And they didn't mean long, they meant big as in the entirety of the property and how the holes were isolated from each other...thereby requiring more land.

Fazio's Karsten Creek in Stillwater, OK is the biggest golf course i have ever seen.  I told a friend that it was BIG and he silently thought that I had lost my mind.  Then he saw it in person, and said he finally understood what I meant.

It's HUGE.

K

[Paul Gray]

I read the list and wanted to say out loud, 'DUH!'  Darius has written a timely and effective article.  But this topic deserves more than magazine articles and blog posts.  This topic deserves hard air time, it deserves a book to two by guys named Nicklaus and Reilly and Feinstein. 

It's one thing for Oliver, Kostis, and Tom to write snippets about slow play, unsustainable maintenance, and bigness.  It's awesome that there are important people that get the issues facing golf courses.  But it's entirely another for the golf complex as a whole to recognize why these issues are important.  I'm not convinced that enough golfers care.  And in any business, unless the market drives changes, the service providers and businesses in that field won't be forced to change.  What's going to force everyone to really notice the things on Darius' list?

I find this post excellent.

Any comments on Ben's final question?

+1