Entropy, Energy and Championship Golf

[Peter Pallotta]

Entropy -- badly put, the tendency of any isolated system to evolve to a state of maximum disorder. Luckily, most everything that exists does not exist in isolation, and 'energy' all all kinds/forms is continually flowing into every system to maintain a measure of stasis/status quo.

Golf courses are example of such systems, but watching major championships for many years and looking ahead to the championships to come, I can't think of any systems other than St Andrews-The Old Course that would not fall victim to the forces of entropy and become utterly unplayable save for the energy (time, labour, money, thought, talent, chemicals, water, grass seed etc etc) that humans throw its way, massive, continual, excessive amounts of energy. 

Which is to say that yet again The Old Course (as you know, the answer or at least a viable answer to every question ever posed on gca.com) demonstrates its unique and unparalleled architectural/design genius.

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

That touches on the true nature of minimalism and naturalism.  Leave the golf course alone...don't touch it...can you continue to play golf on it?  That was the beauty of the linksland, right?

[Dan Herrmann]

Entropy will kill a golf course pretty quickly.  I'd pitch that TOC would fall victim to entropy within a year or two of no or poor maintance.   

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

On the "My visit to Apache Stronghold" thread Astavrides asks the question (in a slightly different context)  "….would he just think it (Apache Stronghold) was a cow pasture because of the conditioning?"

It struck me that even if one did think this evocative statement was the case the course was still eminently playable even though entropy, to some extent, seems to have had its way!  I do not understand thermodynamics and entropy at all well but I can imagine that, although Dan H. suggests that "Entropy will kill a golf course pretty quickly." its downfall might well be delayed.  I suspect that a relatively smaller amount of energy input (than that typically applied) would slow the inevitable demise of the golf course for a long time.

It would be very interesting to know the"financial" energy and resources inputs that go into keeping courses like Apache Stronghold playable and viable compared to the inputs required to take that same course to the dizzy heights deemed acceptable by many a golfer. In Apache Stronghold's case are "minimalism and naturalism" shaking hands because entropy as a dis-ordered state, a la Pallotta, is there but kept at bay with minimal input? Is it fair to say that the law of diminishing returns is very much at work on a golf course when the inputs versus results are actually laid bare? We need to tailor our expectations regarding golf course manicuring and we should cut our coat to suit our cloth!

Cheers Colin

[Peter Pallotta]

Colin - thanks. You make several good points, and you made me think:

Take most of the classic American courses that dominate the "best of" lists. Note how many were built between 1910 and 1929, when money/capital (yet another form of energy) was flowing freely, and how with that money came the ability to continually pour more and different forms of energy into the system, right from the start (and indeed up until today). How might this reality of 'easy energy' have influenced the way the architecture/design of those classic courses was conceived and excecuted? What happens to their design choices/styles when architects KNOW that they and the later custodians of the course can and will pour vast amopunts of energy into the system?  (I don't know, of course, but the proof of at least some kind of influence is in the pudding, e.g. The old Course on one hand, the golden age American classics on the other).  And note how this financial situation repeated itself in America in the post world war 2 era, this ability to pour almost endless amounts of energy into the systems -- and the kind of courses that were designed in that period. And then in the 1980s and early 90s, there is another such financial boom, and again a conscious/unconscious belief about and expectations on the availability of energy to pour into the system, and note what kind of courses tended to be built then...courses, I'd suggest, that like the classic and the dark age courses that came before them stand in start contrast (design and playablity wise) to The Old Course, no matter what their surface differences appear to be. Under this way of thinking, there really is very little difference between Muifield Village and Merion or between Cog Hill and Oakmont or between Firestone and Winged Foot.

Peter

[Matthew Petersen]

Gentlemen,

On the "My visit to Apache Stronghold" thread Astavrides asks the question (in a slightly different context)  "….would he just think it (Apache Stronghold) was a cow pasture because of the conditioning?"

It struck me that even if one did think this evocative statement was the case the course was still eminently playable even though entropy, to some extent, seems to have had its way!  I do not understand thermodynamics and entropy at all well but I can imagine that, although Dan H. suggests that "Entropy will kill a golf course pretty quickly." its downfall might well be delayed.  I suspect that a relatively smaller amount of energy input (than that typically applied) would slow the inevitable demise of the golf course for a long time.

It would be very interesting to know the"financial" energy and resources inputs that go into keeping courses like Apache Stronghold playable and viable compared to the inputs required to take that same course to the dizzy heights deemed acceptable by many a golfer. In Apache Stronghold's case are "minimalism and naturalism" shaking hands because entropy as a dis-ordered state, a la Pallotta, is there but kept at bay with minimal input? Is it fair to say that the law of diminishing returns is very much at work on a golf course when the inputs versus results are actually laid bare? We need to tailor our expectations regarding golf course manicuring and we should cut our coat to suit our cloth!

Cheers Colin

I don't know the full history, but I don't suspect there was much total entropy at Apache Stronghold. If you put no energy in out here, the desert reclaims things very quickly. More likely there was just a prolonged period where not enough energy was being put in relative to what's required to really keep a golf course in good condition in this unhospitable climate.

[Alex Miller]

Entropy will kill a golf course pretty quickly.  I'd pitch that TOC would fall victim to entropy within a year or two of no or poor maintance.   

And yet I've always heard that entropy is a huge part of what made The Old Course what it is today!

Supposedly, people continually playing from the ideal spot would evolve into a hazard that protected that line of play. Now of course, we don't have decades upon decades to sacrifice poor maintenance for a natural evolution of strategic golf: we just ty to build (or find) that course from day one. Players in St. Andrews in the 19th century and earlier didn't have the option to go play somewhere else that had shorter fairways and faster greens, so repeat play at TOC helped the course evolve as the game did.

Granted, today we have better maintenance practices and want to preserve what has been formed over time (for the most part), but maybe in the case of TOC, entropy is also responsible for its greatness?

[Garland Bayley]

I think Peter ignores the vast amount of work OTM did to open up a course there. Let it go to pot, and it will do the same as Bandon Dunes would. Revert to gorse.

[Paul Gray]

Peter,

Nicely put and an interesting topic.

Whilst I find it hard to conclude that any course would remain untouched by entropy, I've long been interested in the relationship between our conscious and/or subconscious perceptions of 'expendable energy' and the way we go about developing/managing land for golf.

This relationship had led me to conclude that the current economic downturn could only be a good thing for the game. I'm now less sure. It concerns me that in our modern consumerist society we, collectively, have become so attached to the concept that more means better that we are now incapable of comprehending that less can be more.

Perhaps, just perhaps, with the long term in mind, the benefits will only be apparent when the current period of economic stagnation is a distant memory.

[Mac Plumart]

I take Peter's biggest point to be that the vast amount of $$ poured into manicuring golf courses does not have to be necessary.  Perhaps I am reading this into his post, but that is what it made me think of.

I don't take his post too literally...meaning that if you don't do anything, ever, to a golf course that it will remain playable.  Rather, if you design a course well and people have a better understanding of the cost/benefit of dollars spent on maintenance, you don't have to put in near that amount of money most clubs currently are putting into golf course maintenance...in order to have a playable and enjoyable course.

The Old Course might be a good example...but Askernish might be a better one.

[astavrides]

.

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter - interesting thoughts.

If we focus on entropy the game may appear to be headed for destruction - but might a sound creative process work to overcome this?

There are good golfing models today beyond St Andrews or Askernish, that demonstrate an informed approach to development can move the game in a positive direction and bring responsible and creative golf 'into the light' once again (so to say).

This could be seen to be the opposite of decline perhaps and therefore evidence of golf continuing to evolve - in defiance of entropy. A more intelligent approach to the game brings hope and in support of this there are many fine and responsible architects doing good.

As a side note I thought the selection of Gil Hanse as architect for the Olympics was symbolically meaningful in this respect. A choice was made to move away from a commercial and potentially indulgent brand of golf to a more responsible model with an apparently 'grounded' architect at the helm with an abundance of creative potential to share. (that said I do appreciate there are alternate angles to the selection, but at the end of the day I feel the choice is a good one for the game).

In essence I feel we need to be asking what type of game do we want? What role are we as individuals prepared to play? What contribution are we prepared to make toward that end? What type of game are we going to pass on to future generations?

Lyne

[Sean_A]

I don't know, in so much as it possible to mitigate entropy by design, TOC is a very good example.  Keep sheep on the course when the golfers are away and I think it would remain in tact remarkably well.  I would say the same for Kington.  Used as grazing land, the course would take a long time disappear back into the hill.  I don't know what this says about design, golf and golfers other than to say truly minimalist designs tend to require minimal input to remain viable as courses.  Whether or not this is a satisfactory state of affairs for golfers is a question I think has been answered in the past 35 years.   Golfers want less of nature and more of a human-controlled environment when it comes to golf. 

Cheers Pietro

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks everyone. I just started with a half formed thought/theory and am working it out on paper to see where it goes. I do understand that entropy is inevitable without 'inputs' -- but I've been finding myself thinking that the majority of quality/great courses designed with the expectation of continual and massive energy inputs tend over time to essentially look and play the same: the rough gets higher, the tees move back, the greens get faster, the fairways get narrower, the bunkers/water are more prevalent, and it all results in a golf experience (whether at Merion or Muirfield Village) that comes down to "hit this spot, and not that one, and then hit the green here, not there". I use TOC as an example of a course where those expectations for continual energy input were not there (and were never there), and find it not coincidental that it still to this day doesn't play like everything else. As Lyne says: we need to keep asking what kind of game we want; I'm thinking that we could work backwards on that as well: decide how much (how little, actually) energy we want to pour into the system/the golf course, and then let that answer influence every aspect of the design. As Sean says, maybe golfers have already answered that question....but maybe not, and maybe (even if they have answered it these past 35 years) we will all find that in the years to come than answer is no longer viable or desirable.  

Peter

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter - also of interest.

Managing with 'consciousness' Superintendent Jeff Carlson comments on environmentally sound and organic golf.

"..... Unless the golfer begins to have a change of perception and begins to accept those blemishes, and has that same mentality as when he goes to St. Andrews or Hoylake, and accepts those conditions and finds them charming and has a great round of golf. Then you can do it. The professionals and the tours and golf's hierarchy have to embrace that, too. The guys who are driving the bus."

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2008-05/environment_carlson#


Perhaps the saving grace will be the eventual realisation by more and more that there is an alternate option and that with the right intent we can evolve toward a healthier future.

Lyne