[Josh Tarble]

As I read this post this morning:

So my friend, the Golfweek rater, told me that if you put BT in the middle of the country, no one would like it and it would be just another golf course. I don't agree with that at all and think it is a fabulous course no matter where it is.

It got me thinking about C&C's courses, which seem to instigate "controversy."  I'm thinking about Bandon Trails, BT #14, Dormie Club in general, some of the holes at Streamsong and I'm sure others I'm not coming up with.  From there I started thinking about other holes that people love to talk about - Kingsley #2 and #9, Streamsong Blue #11, Dismal White #5, any green that's "too severe."  It made me ask the question, does good design automatically generate a bit of controversy?   Does a minimalistic style mean building a few holes that are bound to be severe?  Is it better to design something wild and original that turns a few people off? 

[Mark Fedeli]

What was the talk about Streamsong Blue #11? I'm very familiar with the hole, but not with the discussions.

[Tom_Doak]

Controversial design is not necessarily good design [see: Dismal River #5], but it's certainly not automatically bad design, either. 

Certainly, some people have more of a taste for it than others.  Oddly, Mike Keiser does not particularly like controversy, even though his courses have many potentially controversial holes; his instinct is to tone them down.

Minimalism does not mean that you have to build controversial holes, either.  It's just that most of the architects who practice it have a taste for the occasional really difficult hole.  Given the right land, you could build a really dull minimalist course -- but I think we can all agree that "boring" would be worse than controversial.

[Mark Fedeli]

at its best, i've always looked at controversial design as having the potential to open a players eyes to new possibilities within his game, both physically and mentally.

to use Streamsong Blue as an example again. at first glance, i could see #16 being the most controversial hole on the course for the average player. they may deem it as unfair or too unusual because the length required of them is so foreign to what they are accustomed to on par 3's. even though i think #7 is a more challenging hole, i bet many people would disagree because they are so used to downhill shots over water on their three-shotters.

however, after playing #16, and maybe fading their driver or 3-wood up onto the green for a putt at birdie, they may come away with an entirely new appreciation of that type of long par 3. of course, they may make 7 and still dislike it, but nonetheless, the potential for an eye-opening experience is there where it typically is not on holes they feel fit the standard.

[Tom_Doak]

to use Streamsong Blue as an example again. at first glance, i could see #16 being the most controversial hole on the course for the average player.

It's funny you chose that hole because I would not have considered it especially controversial.  There was a discussion here last year where many different holes were cited by different people as controversial [several of which surprised me], but nobody picked more than a couple, so I took that to mean the course isn't "over the top".  When the same person is citing a half-dozen different holes as controversial, that's when you are in danger of crossing the line.

[Jud_T]

 Is it better to design something wild and original that turns a few people off?  

Josh,

It becomes a bit of a love/hate affair;  i.e. the brussel sprouts of golf.  It can be fantastic for a member's club of folks who learn to love quirk, but it's not a great recipe for a top ranked course, at least as defined by the wanna-be AP algebra employed by most of the golf rags, where a handful of bad reviews drag down an average score which can drop an otherwise really interesting design 50 spots before you can say "that hole is unfair".  I wonder if Prestwick were even allowed to be built today what it's ranking would be.

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder if Prestwick were even allowed to be built today what it's ranking would be.

That's easy; it would not be ranked.  It WASN'T ranked in any of the top 100 lists until it made GOLF Magazine's list about 4 years ago, and you know that history is playing a role in some people's putting it there.

[Mark Fedeli]

to use Streamsong Blue as an example again. at first glance, i could see #16 being the most controversial hole on the course for the average player.

It's funny you chose that hole because I would not have considered it especially controversial.  There was a discussion here last year where many different holes were cited by different people as controversial [several of which surprised me], but nobody picked more than a couple, so I took that to mean the course isn't "over the top".  When the same person is citing a half-dozen different holes as controversial, that's when you are in danger of crossing the line.

interesting. my first thought upon seeing it was, "i'm glad Tom Doak had the balls to do this." of course, my slightly-dramatic impression was helped by the fact the the pin had been middle or right side the times we played it, and that it was a crucial hole in all our matches.

so Josh, what was the deal with Blue #11?

[Peter Pallotta]

Josh - I have no idea of who likes what or of how many people will consider a hole controversial (or of how many is TOO many in that regard); but since I'm not an architect or client I don't need to worry about that. In fact, I don't think ANY of us need to worry/think much about that question. IMO, the much better/more valid question is this: how well did the architect(s) ACCOMPLISH what they INTENDED to accomplish on any given hole.  A bad example of what I mean: if an architect designed what he thought was a driveable par 4 that is NEVER driveable, by ANYONE, under ANY conditions, then all the blather about how "controversial" a hole is/isn't or whether it is TOO controversial is completely besides the point; the hole fails on other and more meaningful/signficant grounds. If a golf hole -- as part of a stretch holes that alternate between gentler and touger tests -- was intended to be a very difficult test and a very hard par, and it accomplishes this intention admirably, where in that lies the potential "controversy"? Is it because the hole "fails" or because "we don't like it"? This first seems a valid critique, the latter a kind of catergory mistake (a kind of mistake that i think all of us tend to make in just about every area of life). The challenge for architects, of course, is that not many of their big money/high profile clients want to hear anything about 'category mistakes', and even if they did would never admit to making one.  The architect's other challenge is that most GOLFERS are equally unable/unwilling to notice this mistake, and are often even more adament in their error.

Peter

[Jason Topp]

Mackenzie wrote that he expected a good course to have controversial holes. 

I have been one of the people critical of #11 Blue.  The green is severe, which would be ok with me, except that I could decipher no tactics the player could employ to improve his chances of success.  Tom has informed us the hole is modeled on #13 at Prestwick and is intended to reward length - giving a big advantage to a person that can reach the green in two over someone who cannot do so. 

An analogous hole I prefer is 15 at Kingsley Club.  It is long and has a very difficult green to hit with a long shot, but poses interesting questions on the 2nd shot because one can often be better off leaving a shot short at the correct angle rather than going for the green, missing, and facing a very difficult chip or pitch.

I am going to need to go back to Streamsong and play 11 a few more times.  It could be a hole that grows on you with experience. 

[Rich Goodale]

I wonder if Prestwick were even allowed to be built today what it's ranking would be.

That's easy; it would not be ranked.  It WASN'T ranked in any of the top 100 lists until it made GOLF Magazine's list about 4 years ago, and you know that history is playing a role in some people's putting it there.

Tom

It was definitely in my "top 100 list" after I first played there in 1978, and remains there to this day......

Rich

[Josh Tarble]

Peter and Jud,
Very good post as usual.  I do think both of you are correct, most "controversy" is because opinions differ rather the hole failing. And it seems these things become a love it or hate it proposition.   But how do we know if a hole just doesn't work?  Isn't it all just a matter of opinion?  And does controversial have to mean too hard? 

Let's go back to Streamsong, since it seems many here have played it.  I don't consider #11 too hard at all.  The last time I played it, I went driver 8 iron from the tips...that green doesn't seem unreasonable under that condition.  I also think it's great because it's such an understated hole, almost boring compared to the others.  In no way would I consider it the best hole on the course, but I think it's one of the reasons I enjoy the course so much.  In the case, if it had a more more "eye candy" or wild undulations would it split so many opinions?  Could this be a case of boring be controversial?

On the other hand, #13 to me fits the controversial but not hard criteria.  In my opinion, there just isn't a great play, if you lay up it's a difficult blind shot to a tough green.  Hit driver and it's perfection of bust...  But it's still only 300 yards, so maybe that's fair to ask those questions as well.

Maybe I'm making more of these things that I should...but I definitely agree with Tom and the Good Doctor, controversial is far more exciting than boring. 

[Mac Plumart]

Tom Paul says the following...

Josh:

C.B. Macdonald and Alister MacKenzie actually wrote that controversy is essentially a goal in great architecture (If you want me to produce their quotes I will. There are also some threads deep in the GCA archives on this subject). As proof of it, when CPC first opened and Robert Hunter wrote MacKenzie (who was in England at the time) that everyone loved CPC, MacKenzie felt he must have done something wrong with the course. Eventually he concluded that the site and course was just so beautiful that no one at first noticed the controversial aspects of the course.The idea is you want to get people talking, discussing or even arguing----eg controversy. Macdonald said that if everyone agrees something is just good that it must be 'deadly dull.'

[Mac Plumart]

Josh...

I think you are on to something.  I find that golf holes/courses that don't fit into the pre-established idea of what a golf course "should be" are met with resistance.  We know lots of people (including Bobby Jones) hated The Old Course AT FIRST...then came to love it.

In my own experience, I've seen the 9th hole at Rivermont go through a pretty drastic change at the green.  It is a short par 4 that goes down hill off the tee and uphill on the approach.  The green used to be a standard punchbowl.  But it has been altered a bit...a "chip" was taken out of the front of the punch bowl and the greens contours have been amped up.

When I first played it I LOVED it, but all the members who knew the old 9 green hated it.  Complained every time they played the hole.  As I play as a single a lot and get grouped together with 3 random members, I see a lot of people's reaction to this hole.  After about 1 year...maybe 2...I am now seeing more members praising how fun the hole and green are, rather than complaining.

I believe it was simply "different" for them at first and wasn't what they were used to...so they complained about it.  BUT now that they have seen it, they realize that it is flat out fun to play.  So, now they like it.  Change, and new things, take time to get used to.

[Tom_Doak]

Josh - I have no idea of who likes what or of how many people will consider a hole controversial (or of how many is TOO many in that regard); but since I'm not an architect or client I don't need to worry about that. In fact, I don't think ANY of us need to worry/think much about that question. IMO, the much better/more valid question is this: how well did the architect(s) ACCOMPLISH what they INTENDED to accomplish on any given hole.  

Peter:

I so often agree with you, that I feel obliged to point out a situation where I don't.

Architects have to be aware of how controversial their holes are going to be, and whether that's going to be okay with the client.  If it's not okay, then the controversy may lead to reconstruction, and reconstruction is expensive.

If you are only saying that architects should not be AFRAID of controversy, then we agree.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Paul says the following...

Josh:

C.B. Macdonald and Alister MacKenzie actually wrote that controversy is essentially a goal in great architecture (If you want me to produce their quotes I will. There are also some threads deep in the GCA archives on this subject). As proof of it, when CPC first opened and Robert Hunter wrote MacKenzie (who was in England at the time) that everyone loved CPC, MacKenzie felt he must have done something wrong with the course. Eventually he concluded that the site and course was just so beautiful that no one at first noticed the controversial aspects of the course.The idea is you want to get people talking, discussing or even arguing----eg controversy. Macdonald said that if everyone agrees something is just good that it must be 'deadly dull.'

Mac:

True enough, but this same quote is dredged up whenever an architect builds a hole that is just too severe -- he defends it as "controversial", hoping that the criticism will go away.  In fact, often the hole is not really controversial, it's just too damned hard for everybody except the pedal-to-the-metal 2-handicap types.  But I promised myself I wouldn't comment on your other thread.

[Mac Plumart]

Remember Tom, that post was from Tom Paul.

[Josh Tarble]

Tom,

How do you know when it's just too hard and when it's a matter of opinion?

[Josh Tarble]

Mac,
Thanks for your response...I do think a lot of it because they're just different.  Maybe that's why classic British/Irish links can get away with far more quirk than new courses - because they've always been like that AND they're supposed to be weird and different.   That's probably also why so many people travel from so far away to play those courses...like Jud said, it's love it/hate it.  And the people that love it, really really love it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

How do you know when it's just too hard and when it's a matter of opinion?

When a hipster doesn't even find it ironic.

[Carl Rogers]

One day I hope, there will be a larger number of east coast GCA'ers that will experience Ballyhack .... and conduct their own test of the question posed by this thread.

How does Tobacco Road work with this thread?  Has it evolved from controversial (because it is well known) to something else?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - your post #14 is an instance where I've reached the limits of my understanding. How architects can know (or at least make a reasonable estimate about) how controversial their holes are going to be is beyond me; that level of awareness/insight in regards to how golf holes will be perceived by a broad spectrum golfers is something I can't imagine. And it makes the presence of a controversial golf hole much more of a conscious choice on the part of architect than I would've/could've guessed. I have to take it on trust that you (and others, including Dr. Mackenzie at CPC as per Tom P's post) are indeed able to predict -- and thus are able to modulate and moderate -- the degree of controversy the holes will have and make sure the client is okay with it; but again, I simply don't know or understand how that's done. (Of course, I guess there's no reason I should know...)

Peter

JK - another terrific bit there, the hipster who can't see the irony.

[Chris Johnston]

How about this...

Good controversial design/hole = You can't wait to play it and, even if different and/or challenging, you are thrilled to tackle it.

Bad controversial design/hole = You dread playing it.  It really isn't fun at all.  You'd rather take double and skip it.

[BCowan]

Also i think it is important to point out if the course is maint to liking of the Architect in which it was designed.  Are the green complexes really undulating and best kept at 9 on the stemp, or is making them 11+ to satisfy the current green speed trend more important? 

[Howard Riefs]

Let's go back to Streamsong, since it seems many here have played it.  I don't consider #11 too hard at all.  The last time I played it, I went driver 8 iron from the tips...that green doesn't seem unreasonable under that condition.  I also think it's great because it's such an understated hole, almost boring compared to the others.  In no way would I consider it the best hole on the course, but I think it's one of the reasons I enjoy the course so much.  In the case, if it had a more more "eye candy" or wild undulations would it split so many opinions?  Could this be a case of boring be controversial?

Keep in mind that Driver/8 iron for you is Driver/hybrid for the other 99% of retail golfers.  The green is that more severe when you're not thowing darts with an 8 iron.

When we played the other week, the pin on Friday morning was on the right side and toward the back. Such a difficult pin that it was resulting in three and four putts, slowing down groups and the staff had it changed before noon.  

On the other hand, #13 to me fits the controversial but not hard criteria.  In my opinion, there just isn't a great play, if you lay up it's a difficult blind shot to a tough green.  Hit driver and it's perfection of bust...  But it's still only 300 yards, so maybe that's fair to ask those questions as well.

I agree that #13 is more controversial. There's no great play no matter your handicap. There's no miss outside of beyond the green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()