[Mark Bourgeois]

Or if not "least defined" how bout just "ill defined"? And if you can't add any besides TOC and RND,that's okay but could you share why you think either or both of those courses are ill defined? What accounts for their lack of definition -- in present day?

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

For me it would be any of the common-land courses in the UK and Ireland -- Westward Ho!, Brora, etc.

I think that most other places nowadays the primary definition is that between the maintained area and "native rough" -- usually a huge distinction between playable and sometimes-unplayable, at which man has the final say.  Some courses try to make the lines more natural than others, but it is VERY hard to do in an "undefined" way now that irrigation systems are part of the equation.

[Ed Brzezowski]

From what I saw last week almost every course we played in Scotland. Royal Dornoch comes to mind immediately. I do not recall seeing any definition at all , fairway blends into high grasses and they blend into the angry bushes. The only definition I recall are holes bordering the sea .
I guess this is true of links golf?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -

I really like the phrase Brent used on another thread, i.e. the geometry of the course. And when you ask about ill defined architecture I think about courses that have (and allow for) a fluid geometry -- the shot-making angles and the relationship between those angles in both two and three dimensions can and do change, while still allowing the course to be playable; and this fluidity can be the result of either the wind, the turf conditions, the golfer's choices, or a combination of one or more of those three elements. And when I define/describe it like that, a type of course immediately comes to mind (for me, from photos only), i.e. courses like Wolf Point, Ballyneal, Sand Hills, and to a certain extent courses like Seminole, NGLA, and Old Macdonald. Needless to say, width allows for more fluidity in a course's geometry, as does a lack of trees etc. On the other end of the spectrum, a course I like quite a bit, i.e. Harbour Town, has wonderful geometry, but it is much more of the fixed rather than of the fluid kind. (I think Pete Dye in general goes for more of a fixed geometry at his courses, but he sometimes -- and intentionally -- fools/confuses golfers about this by ladling in essentially meaningless hazards and features so as to suggest fluidity where none exists, and thereby to get those poor tour pros 'thinking'.) Rough you can play out of, greens with open fronts, undulating greens, not overwhelming length, elevation changes (even just bumps and hollows) and canted fairways of course also expand (or have the potential to expand) a course's geometry. The Old Course seems to have, and perhaps is unique in having, all the key elements needed to foster/create fluid geometry.

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

My interest is about the elements or characteristics beyond irrigation and mowing lines. What is it about common-law courses that produces the lack of definition?

What about the placement of bunkers? I would guess the absence of framing bunkers reduces definition but anything beyond that? What about the roles played by apparent randomness and holes that violate commonly-held principles of architecture?

Peter, could you explain more fully how these relate to lack of definition?

...greens with open fronts, undulating greens, not overwhelming length, elevation changes (even just bumps and hollows) and canted fairways of course also expand (or have the potential to expand) a course's geometry.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I'm suggesting that what you call undefined architecture is characterized by what I call fluid geometry. But fluid geometry would be useless/unimportant if it didn't allow for playability throughout/for all the various combination of angles (geometry) that elements like the wind and a firm and running turf and wide fairways engender. The greens with open fronts, the not overwhelming length, the changes in elevation and cant etc etc that I mention both foster the fluidity and help ensure playability. (The alternatives: greens surrounded by bunkers and perched up high have a restricted geometry and playability for most golfers, since whatever the wind is doing or whatever angle of approach is taken, the shot always has to be a high one that lands softly; and if a course is nothing but very long Par 4s, a head wind or a tail wind would not much change the course's geometry for most golfers, who couldn't get on in regulation in any event.)  So, in short: by helping to ensure playability in various conditions, the features I mention make meaningful the fluid geometry that is designed into a course and that I tried to define/describe.

But maybe I'm totally off in assuming that my fluid geometry is in any way akin to your 'lack of definition'. Perhaps you may be focusing more on the visuals (asking about a course that doesn't LOOK as if it were 'designed') while I may be focusing more on the shot-making (describing a course that doesn't PLAY as if it were 'designed'). The Old Course fits the bill on both counts.

Peter

[Ed Oden]

Old Mac is at the top of my list.  The lack of definition is startling - equal parts comforting and disorienting.  You can hit the ball just about anywhere.  Very few lines of attack are a disaster...even fewer are really good.  My understanding is that Doak, Urbina, et al went to great lengths to lose the lines at Old Mac.  Seems to me they have effectively recreated the scheme from the common-land courses.  Doesn't maintenance play a big part as well?  Brown blurs better then green.
   

[Adam Lawrence]

The thing that, above all else, produces definition, in my eyes, is courses where fairways are one grass, greens another, maintained roughs another and native roughs something else still. Definition is blurred when the whole property is covered with many different grasses, some mowed close, some less, some not at all.

[Sean_A]

Pennard!  There are a few reasons for this.  

1. Lack of bunkering - no road map.

2. Little visual difference between rough and fairway.  

3. Blind shots - though not nearly as many as people claim.

4. Fairways bleeding into greens.

5. Often, no obvious best way to play the holes.


I will also mention Cleeve Cloud as a candidate.  The biggest reason other than those mentioned above is the immensity of the site.  

Generally speaking, many links are ill-defined only because of well placed pot bunkers in the folds of the land.  

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Some thoughts from a UK perspective -

Brora, Kington, Pennard, Yelverton, Westward Ho!, Aberdovey, Minchinhampton' Old and the like - sheep and cows and ponies are not inclined to eat in straight lines.

Lack of money/staff helps - only cut where you really need to cut.

Common land regulations - local regulations may prevent certain maintenance activities and/or the presence of formal piped irrigation systems.

Lower quality soil/free draining soil - grass doesn't need as much regular cutting.

Nice thread Mark. Well done for raising it.

All the best

[Mark Bourgeois]

Great stuff all around. Thanks for the course suggestions. Sean, could you explain further:

"Generally speaking, many links are ill-defined only because of well placed pot bunkers in the folds of the land."

It seems from some of the comments that routing might play a role.

[Sean_A]

Great stuff all around. Thanks for the course suggestions. Sean, could you explain further:

"Generally speaking, many links are ill-defined only because of well placed pot bunkers in the folds of the land."

It seems from some of the comments that routing might play a role.

Mark

Yes, routing pays a part because guys used to stick bunkers in natural spots.  When pots came into fashion, the idea of the big brassy intimidating bunker (ala Dr Mac style) which had to be seen to be properly effective nearly completely disappeared.  These features gave a huge amount definition to courses. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Are you sure about that? Very interesting if "guys" put bunkers in hollows rather than for "strategic" intent. Actually, that makes sense if you consider bunkers going in where golf balls tended to collect and therefore repeated divots created ur-bunkers.

Ooh: okay,  we're getting somewhere--check this out: we have discussed in the past this method of bunker creation. It stands in stark contrast to the decision to fill in the hollow on TOC 7.

But -- and this is to your standing point about over bunkering -- doesn't the act of putting in a bunker in these circumstances constitute defining the course? To add bunkering w/o increasing definition doesn't there have to he a sort of randomness, like sheep's scraping or a non golfing idiot of sorts being put in charge of adding the bunkers?

Maybe this is to Mackenzie's point about TOC being built be re anyone had any set ideas about design.

[Mark Bourgeois]

What can aerials teach us about the nature of undefinition?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()