[Tommy Williamsen]

Often when I play a course in the mountains, desert, or ocean, it is easy to see how much the backdrop helped determine the direction the hole is to be played.  It is stunning to play a hole with Pinnacle peak in the background.  Just looking at Kapalua, gives you a sense that C&C were mindful of the back drop.  I suspect it is true of inland parkland courses as well.  To the GCAs out there how much does scenery determine routing?

[Bill_McBride]

tommy, have you been to Capilano?   Three front nine downhill holes frame Vancouver a Harbor, two back nine par 4s frame mountain peaks in the opposite direction.  It's quite spectacular.  I'm sure Stanley Thompson was quite conscious of this as the alignments are quite straightforward.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tommy,

As a generalisation, I think the backdrop plays a larger part with modern GCA's than it did with golden age and pre-golden age designers, sometimes to the detriment of the routing.

In many ways, this is what I was getting at with the "eye-candy vs subtlety" thread I started a few months ago. It is quite easy to get caught up with what will frame a green site, horizon etc... over what is to be found on the ground. It goes without saying that when great routing combine with spectacular backdrops, the best solution has been arrived at. But I think many modern GCA's place too much emphasis on the latter. Goes hand in hand with the rise of "signature holes" over coherence of the 18...

[Duncan Cheslett]

As a generalisation, I think the backdrop plays a larger part with modern GCA's than it did with golden age and pre-golden age designers

I'm sure you're right, Ally.

I'm not a golf course architect, but I am a businessman, and I know that if I was building a golf course I would want the promotional photographs to look as spectacular as possible and have plenty of eye-candy to wow the punters on their first of hopefully many visits.

The old-time architects presumably didn't have to worry about putting 'bums on seats' in quite the same way, and could concentrate on the pure quality of the golf.

It is probably a good thing that I am not a golf course architect!

[Connor Dougherty]

Tommy,

As a generalisation, I think the backdrop plays a larger part with modern GCA's than it did with golden age and pre-golden age designers, sometimes to the detriment of the routing.

Ally,
I wonder if it's not that a backdrop plays more of a role in modern GCA than previously, but that in modern architecture the goal is to emphasize the backdrop rather than design a tremendous golf hole with a good backdrop.

Taking an example from Wide Open Fairways, the pictures of Firecrest CC in Tacoma circa 1929 on page 170 highlights my theory, in that the location is no different than what would be selected today if a new course were being routed on the same piece of property, but there is no way that anyone would build a green that towers like Firecrest's 17th. Most would say that it distracts from the backdrop, but the reality is it presents a hole worthy of the backdrop. The same, from what I can tell through photographs, could be told about Devil's Cauldron at Banff Springs.

I find that more of the modern courses use features to emphasize the backdrop rather than add to the golf hole. Sometimes it accomplishes both. For what it's worth, this is probably the best option on a resort course which the golfer may only visit a few times.

[Sean_A]

I don't think it should be surprising that modern designers emphasize the back drop more than previously.  With practically every design concept under the sun exhausted, design has to move in some direction so why not aestethics?  People want beautiful backdrops and technology makes it possible to build holes to suit emphasized backdrops.  I know there is a push for minimalism, but when an opportunity presents itself an archie should be able pull it off with a high quality hole found or built. I haven't seen the course, but there seems to be a general agreement that Castle Stuart pulled off the double quite admirably.  

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

It plays a massive part in my thoughts. I have always considered it to be a huge flaw in others work when they ignore those things for the sake of making a hole 20 yards longer. Sometimes you might only have 100 acres but with great views you can allow the outside landscape  to be part of the course. Castle Stuart is the perfect example of making it great without the bits on your land.

It can work conversely too where you would not want to site a green with backdrop of an 'Eiffell Tower' Pylon.

[Tom_Doak]

It certainly affects my routings a lot, although I don't think I am sacrificing much in terms of interesting green sites to achieve this.  I will more likely adjust the tee position to line up the background.

I learned the importance of this from studying MacKenzie courses, I am sure it was a key for him and for Stanley Thompson, if not so much for Ross or Tillinghast.  Pete Dye never talked about it when I worked for him. But anybody who works in the field must be conscious of it.

[Paul Gray]

Ordinarily, surely, it's about commercial interest vs purity. What sells is not necessarily what's best.

The trick, as has been alluded to, is to find a way of not compromising on purity whilst still providing the eye candy. Is that perhaps achievable, longer term, by reconfiguring what serves as eye candy? The zeitgeist inevitably changes but can we or should we effect that change?

[Carl Rogers]

It certainly affects my routings a lot, although I don't think I am sacrificing much in terms of interesting green sites to achieve this.  I will more likely adjust the tee position to line up the background.

I learned the importance of this from studying MacKenzie courses, I am sure it was a key for him and for Stanley Thompson, if not so much for Ross or Tillinghast.  Pete Dye never talked about it when I worked for him. But anybody who works in the field must be conscious of it.

Tom, at Riverfront I would have to think the the location and terrific backdrop view of:
- the peninsula 4th hole over wetlands and wetlands tributary to the Nansemond River background
    and
- the 15th green to the Nansemond River background
would have been the key drivers to the routings of each nine

[Jason Thurman]

Ordinarily, surely, it's about commercial interest vs purity. What sells is not necessarily what's best.

Even for a skeptical and pessimistic jerk like me, this strikes me as overly pessimistic. Why shouldn't a golf course take advantage of a spectacular backdrop to a hole? Imagine the tragedy if the architects at Pebble Beach or Cypress Point had routed away from the beauty of the Monterey shoreline, instead choosing to build "pure" inland holes that would never be accused of selling out for commercial interest.

Put another way, if you really believe that a Mackenzie bunker is more impressive than great natural wonders like the oceans or mountains, then you've got your priorities all wrong. For me, real purity of design comes when the golf course works in concert with its surroundings to create the feel of traversing some of the world's greatest settings while engaged in pursuit of challenge.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Its not just the back drop that matters, its also the horizon line of the golf and how the two interact that should be of major importance. Castle Stuart is really a great example, and I've been getting a 400 level class on this the last 2 years in China at the course I've been working on.

[Niall C]

Jaeger

Don't you think the skyline green is now a modern cliche, particularly at Castle Stuart ?

Ally

I suspect that the modern architect has more scope to move earth around than the golden agers, particularly in the earlier years of the golden age, therefore they might have had the choice of make use of a feature to create a cool hole or alternatively take advantage of the backdrop. I imagine the modern architect on the other hand can create the feature rather than looking for it in the ground while taking advantage of the backdrop at the same time.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Don't you think the skyline green is now a modern cliche, particularly at Castle Stuart ?

An occasional skyline green is part of many great courses.  Eight or ten on one course is a different story.

[Ian Andrew]

Jasper Park (Thompson) is set in a broad Mountain Valley - each hole ends pointing at a different peak around the valley.
Whether intentional (rumoured to be so) or not - the results are striking.
It - in my mind - is the greatest example of borrowed scenery that I know.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, what's the limit on architectural purity/playability that will be sacrificed in order to obtain an enhanced view ?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I would think that it takes a great deal of effort and imagination to design a hole that takes best advantage of the backdrop but doesn't necessarily use the best land for  particular hole. I don't think  the integrity of the design has to suffer because that architect wants to utilize the view to his advantage.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would think that it takes a great deal of effort and imagination to design a hole that takes best advantage of the backdrop but doesn't necessarily use the best land for  particular hole. I don't think  the integrity of the design has to suffer because that architect wants to utilize the view to his advantage.  

Tommy,

The integrity of the design HAS to suffer, inherently, if the primary design task is focused on the view

[Wade Whitehead]

Tommy:

Your question is one that GCAers answer differently than >95% of people who play the game.

Most golfers like pretty, downhill holes.  They also like a pretty view from a tee or a green (where they have time to observe and talk about it with others).

WW

[Pete_Pittock]

Think it all started at St Andrews with the steeple

[Paul Gray]

Ordinarily, surely, it's about commercial interest vs purity. What sells is not necessarily what's best.

Even for a skeptical and pessimistic jerk like me, this strikes me as overly pessimistic. Why shouldn't a golf course take advantage of a spectacular backdrop to a hole? Imagine the tragedy if the architects at Pebble Beach or Cypress Point had routed away from the beauty of the Monterey shoreline, instead choosing to build "pure" inland holes that would never be accused of selling out for commercial interest.

Put another way, if you really believe that a Mackenzie bunker is more impressive than great natural wonders like the oceans or mountains, then you've got your priorities all wrong. For me, real purity of design comes when the golf course works in concert with its surroundings to create the feel of traversing some of the world's greatest settings while engaged in pursuit of challenge.

Jason,

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about the appearance of a bunker over the appearance of a natural backdrop, I'm talking about the possible compromises to a routing because of the backdrop. I'd entirely agree with your comments about a golf course, and therein its routing, traversing nature. It's exactly that which I'm referring to as being pure.

In the case you make about Pebble Beach or Cypress Point, the layouts are surely great because of the shoreline rather than in spite of it. However, you wouldn't say the same thing if a classic links course was rerouted in order to simply provide a visual backdrop of the sea. In fact, isn't Turnberry often criticised for doing just that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, what's the limit on architectural purity/playability that will be sacrificed in order to obtain an enhanced view ?  ?  ?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I would think that it takes a great deal of effort and imagination to design a hole that takes best advantage of the backdrop but doesn't necessarily use the best land for  particular hole. I don't think  the integrity of the design has to suffer because that architect wants to utilize the view to his advantage.  

Tommy,

The integrity of the design HAS to suffer, inherently, if the primary design task is focused on the view

Pat, I understand what you are saying and in many cases that probably is true.  What I am saying is that effort and imagination might make a hole that could be greater than the one left on the drawing board.  I can't come up with any examples because I am not familiar with the design process of too many courses.  Sometimes a sows ear can become a silk purse.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think – as Tom and Adrian allude to – that the visuals and aesthetics of the long distance view are always high in the mind of every designer. I just wonder whether some get so hung up on providing the wow moments (including backdrop) that they sacrifice better green sites, better walkability and therefore better routing. I’ve certainly seen examples.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()