Obstacle course architecture

[Don Mahaffey]

In the introduction to George Bahto's wonderful "The Evangelist of Golf" Ben Crenshaw writes this sentence in the first paragraph. "From the crude obstacle courses that characterized the pre-1900 era, McDonald introduced holes of strategic complexity that are as much a test of mind as body"

The profession of Golf Architecture has tried to build on what McDonald introduced, but IMO, we've refined it so well, and improved course conditions so much, that much of the strategic complexity has been lost. I also think that while the modern practice of rating golf courses initially helped architecture by bringing attention to some under the radar work, it now has a negative influence in that developers and designers need to make sure that raters "get" what they are building.

I think the "improvements" in course design techniques, construction capability, and especially the leap in course maintenance expectations has created a "box" that constrains much of the complexity that can make golf courses interesting. And we seem to have this opinion that golfers can't figure anything out on their own without the architect injecting features that are nothing more than sign posts. Aiming bunkers, mounds to separate and frame, lack of blindness, even partial blindness, all done in an attempt to make sure the golfer knows what lies ahead. How is any of that adding any strategic complexity? Even the breakthrough minimalist era is now becoming a bit stale as it seems all the young talent is either picking up the crumbs dropped my the masters, or trying to out do them at their own game. More of the same.

We are no doubt building some beautiful golf courses today. They function, they are pretty, but are they complex from a golf playing standpoint? We know they are complex construction projects, but I wonder if our building abilities hasn't tempered our imagination.

When the look powers over the golf, are we even designing golf courses anymore? Or large semi formal gardens that can accommodate a game?

I wonder if it is time to bypass the golden age and see if we can't find some influence from some of those pre-1900 obstacle courses?  

[Sean_A]

Don

How complex can a golf hole really be?  How complex does a hole nee to be?

In my experience, subtlety is the best way to confuse golfers, but that isn't a matter of complication.  The issue is where does the wow factor come from if not for the road maps?  I too find this type of design (and its far more pervasive in a great many top championship venues than people will admit) a bit lacking, but many alternatives are seen as goofy golf by the multitudes.  In other words, most golfers usually don't get subtlety or cleverness. They want wow factor and road maps. Just look at how people fawn over huge dunes...people want to be wowed and guided. 

Ciao 

[V. Kmetz]

Hi Don, All,

A thought well worth considering imo.

The first thing for me when I encounter this idea is to evolve the term "Obstacle" and give it the gentler, more neutral, term, "Task." While most of us think have nothing to think but good things about Ben Crenshaw, I wonder if we can't put a bit too much interpretative authority into words such as "crude obstacle courses that characterized the pre-1900 era."

Does this mean just THOSE obstacle courses were "crude"?
Does this mean that ANY obstacle course is "crude?"
Are not almost all courses--obstacle or not--from 1880-1900 considered "crude," owing to the fact that the game was literally 20 years old here?

My point is that I don't "think" Ben would call St. Andrews a crude obstacle course, but one need only walk 400 yards from the R&A clubhouse to see the Swilcan Burn and the Road Bunker as obstacles every bit as "crude" as the ones I believe he's amalgamating into his comment

But if I turn "Obstacle" into "Task" - a lot more fluency is seen between architecture of that era and the architecture that has come since, the best and the worst of it (as each golfer apprehends it for themselves).

As has been discussed at least once here...isn't some of the "charm" and the affinity for Mac/Raynor/Banks/Template styles because the "task," the "obstacle" to thwart success is repeatedly recognizable...?

Biarritz - the long shot that is straight and has enough quality action to "skip" to the rear location...
Punchbowl - the trust and the judgment of the golfer, given blindness...
Short - a multi-leveled, pimpled, rumpled green that awaits those who play a short iron indifferently?
Redan - a diagonal sliver between two pits of sand...

A golf hole and a golf course is/are a series of "tasks" to be completed, playing problems to be solved--for me it's never been any different, the first shepards batting rocks to distant points they chose were thinkign the same way I think. Refinements in aesthetics, equipment, playability, methods of construction and agronomy, etc are to be expected as the game grew so rapidly, but golf itself is a game of obstacles--how pleasing, satisfying, amusing, exhilarating, those obstacles may be, is the province of our opinion.

cheers

vk

[Steve Lang]

   When my buddy and I first started golfing down the street, around the Old Orchard school yard and over to Ottawa Park, it was a continuous collection of obstacles and tortured paths, with the dynamic of cars coming past the intersection of Pelham & Cheltenham where our first/last tree goal was...

a Dan Jenkins / SI inspired golfing experience.. obstacles are in the mind of the beholder

so are the rater panels beyond their expiration date?

[Mike_Young]

Don,
Agree.  Some thoughts.....Just as Taylormade released a new driver every six months, the golf and turf industry has done the same with equipment and the supts and developers and archies keep falling for it all the while knowing much of it will increase the cost of the golf much more than it will increase the enhancement of the course.  This is especially true in irrigation. 
I think we often forget how quickly a modern construction project is ready for play vs.  those of the early 20th century or before.  But all of this stuff will work itself out.  The market will force it to.  Clothing stores have been selling blue blazers for years while the various styles come and go.  Music has been changing constantly but even my kids still listen to 70's and 80's music.  All of this "best I've ever seen", jagged bunker copying, vertical greens etc will run it's course and come back to the middle.   IMHO the one thing that has remained a constant in GCA over the years for good golf courses 99% of the time is good land and the ability to grow good grass without someone coming in and forcing the issues.  Add that to the right locations and those places will remain for a long time.  Take away either the right land or location and the chances of going away increase dramatically.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

In general I agree, with a few caveats.

First, the JN types would argue that better conditions = more predictable shot, and would enhance strategy. No sense taking a chance when your best shot might bounce somewhere bad no matter how well hit.

Second, while I agree, I see it as a long continuum. When I read the Golden Age books, for the most part they advocated fairness, minimizing blind shots, etc.

Third, as MY alludes, as all other aspects of golf has evolved, does the nuanced architecture of the GA still work the same?  Or, is it part nostalgia.  (Think SH redan in the last US Open, for one very high profile example, but there are others)

Fourth, as the TV generation took over golf, and is used to having visual presentation with plots all wrapped up in half an hour, is a visually presented hole, plot easily obvious on first view (and solved in the 15 minutes it takes to play the hole) just a natural extension?

Interesting point on going back to pre 1900 for inspiration.  I would love it, personally. It has character and charm.  Of course, if we believe at least some of the predisposition for GA courses is nostalgia, it may also be time to go forward to the best of the 50's 60's and 70's for inspiration.  For us, it would be like watching I Love Lucy or Andy Griffith on TV.  Of, the really sexy ones would feature Dick Van Dyke show and Mary Tyler Moore! 

Seriously, somehow, I think that would strike a nerve with many........recalling what golf was like when they first started playing.  As a more visual society, I think that look, rather than some subtle nuance of strategies from the 20's but never seen would be more satisfying, for right, or wrong.

[Don Mahaffey]

Third, as MY alludes, as all other aspects of golf has evolved, does the nuanced architecture of the GA still work the same?  Or, is it part nostalgia.  (Think SH redan in the last US Open, for one very high profile example, but there are others)

Fourth, as the TV generation took over golf, and is used to having visual presentation with plots all wrapped up in half an hour, is a visually presented hole, plot easily obvious on first view (and solved in the 15 minutes it takes to play the hole) just a natural extension?

pt #3 - work the same? Nostalgia? What do you mean by work the same? How could it work differently? New equipment may require adjustment, but if an older course has 3-5 holes where the preferred miss is long and you are screwed if you are short, how does that not work the same today, yet it is something we almost never see. To the point that it has almost become one of those rules you are always reminding us we have to be careful with. I don't understand how a modern day Prestwick wouldn't work the same as the original?  I get that 99% of the modern architects would dismiss the idea based on "modern society and modern golfer", but that is not the question.

pt #4 - so what then is the next natural extension? Playing golf in the bar like darts? Extinction of the game minus a few enclaves here and there? That quick to figure out architecture bores many and is the root of my "large semi formal garden built to accommodate a game".  Like the idea is, we can't really build something interesting or mentally challenging, so lets make sure it is beautiful and follow all the riles and spend all the money to make sure the turf is perfect.
It is a serious question, if dumbing down and beautification is the natural extension, what comes next in golf's evolution? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I understand it's a serious question, and mine basically was the same.  Can you/we/architecture change human nature or do we design it to accommodate what it is or has become?  So, its an interesting proposition to discuss, and, I am discussing it.  I understand this website favors looking backwards, and there are hundreds of threads bringing up the same old arguments about the greatness of minimalism and old time design, that may prefer an re-affirmation of groupthink over an open discussion.  As always, I could be wrong.  If that is what this is disguised as, pardon me.

As to holes working differently, I will admit I wasn't considering a hole where the best play might be over the green, thinking more of the run up approaches many advocate, but which are rarely used. Not that I mind designing approaches that allow the run up option, because its not like you are spending any more money on an unused option (which might not be the case on things like double fairways)  Or thinking of greens designed for low flying 3 irons that now see 7 irons from better players.

Also part of the equation is a feature like the best play being over the green.  It seems to me that most folks wouldn't consider it natural.  Similarly, placing hazards behind greens are not as naturally strong a defense as something in front of the target.  While I have no problem in an occasional example of this type of hole, to fit a circumstance, to be unique, etc., I can understand why it has generally been banished - it has been tried and found wanting by a majority as not as good as other type holes over time. 

I view bringing back old time stuff, even if design concepts long forgotten, minimized or downplayed, to be part nostalgia.  While Prestwick would play generally the same for many despite new equipment, as you suggest, its whether it is the best form of golf.  You suggest some of it is.  I suggest its a remnant of a bygone era.  Heck, even Tom Morris and others since seem to agree with me, because the Prestwick style of design was out of favor 100 years ago.

So, yes, golf can get too mechanical.  Maybe the technical brilliance of JN also contributed?  Yes, the 50's and the RTJ style (both in tournament golf and worldwide standardization) brought is some stuff that has turned stale and needs attention.  He wasn't the first one into designing all strong holes.  As Tillie said, "making the weak ones stand up in polite company" so my only point was the elimination of quirk was going on in the GA.  To me, it seems as if it goes back to Muirfield, circa about 1892 in one of its modernizations.  To me, it looks like the first modern style course in Scotland.

You and a few others want to revisit the subject, which is fine.  No idea is ever completely dead in architecture and none should be as banished as say, blind shots in black and white, good vs. evil fashion.

It still leaves the question you pose at the end, which is would more pre professional and pre 1900 design quirk make the game more attractive to the next generation?

We don't know of course. I certainly advocate designing to make golf more popular in the future.  We know we aren't like our parents/grandparents, and we know our kids and grandkids won't be like us.  The only constant is change......and of course, you busting a ventricle at almost anything I choose to write... (sad face)  Nostalgia and "old school" is a part of OUR attraction to golf, but will the kids feel the same?  Or want to take golf a totally different direction?  Skill is part of it.  With video games, maybe they will want more manual skill and more instant information than even we desire. 

Honestly, to reintroduce quirk and bounces it seems you think would add more fun (and I agree, but I don't play for money.....) I think for me it would be a return to using more cross (and other) slopes in the fairways than have been bulldozed out over the years, which would provide some of the unpredictability.  I am reminded of Redan discussions over the years, always including the question "Why would I ever NOT want to aim right at the pin?"  The sad part to us is, that these slopes/bounces would probably be viewed by youth as the golf equivalent of the surprise enemy randomly popping up in the video game, which is what would make it cool to them.

[Don Mahaffey]

You've always been the voice of reason. Keeping it real.
I think your position comes from experience and I appreciate that angle.
You know if you are going to make it in the golf design business, you have to design for them, not for yourself.
For the client, for the "modern" golfer you've assigned these traits that tell you to keep it simple and straight forward.
You've written that experience breeds caution and conservatism. And in golf design we have experience, so we are conservative and cautious. And we use all sorts of societal traits, properly perceived or not, to justify our conservatism.

I'm well aware that my likes, my vision, my golf desires are rooted in the theoretical realm, for the most part.
But I also think something different can work, just as I believe the open routing at DR Red works and the reversible course RGD is building in MI will work. Both of those ideas would have been shot down had they been "crowd designed".

It has never been easier to be creative for most artistic disciplines. If you are a musician or up and coming band, you have way more avenues to being heard than you did in the past. If you are a writer, you can self publish. In golf design, not so much. Probably never been harder. Fewer clients, fewer projects, establishment rules that dictate construction expense, land costs...on and on. How does one sell something different today? Jeff Mingay's recent thread about bunker placement was revealing in that he had to constantly fend off the naysayers who had been "educated" by experience.

So maybe I'm just lamenting my disappointment that for the rest of my life I will probably just see more of the same. It'll be good, well thought out, it'll function and photograph well, but with few exceptions like the reversible course at FD, it'll mostly be more of the same.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Don, et all - good thread, thanks.

It strikes me that today's most accomplished architects have, each in their own way and through differing uses of the tools you mentioned (e.g. design techniques, construction capabilities), managed to create the appearance of strategic complexity more consistently and strikingly than ever before.  

The heart of the question is whether in the case of gca the appearance is in fact also the reality. It may well be - both because, as Sean asks/notes "how complex can any golf hole actually be?" and because the effect on a golfer's mind/decision-making will be the same in either case, i.e. the same whether there are actually many decisions to make or whether it just seems that way.  

The result, however, of this increasing and across-the-board ability by accomplished architects to present 'strategic complexity' does seem to be that the truly subtle and quiet and understated golf/golf course has become increasingly rare.  

I guess that when almost everyone is providing 'strategic complexity' in spades, no architect can risk not appearing to do the same.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Agree on all, except that I don't think it will be "all" the same.  Change has always been gradual, but it will be no more than 99% the same.  There will always be the 1% new stuff (although, like CBM, I might argue every thing has probably been tried somewhere, even if I have never seen it) whether by "ignorance of the rules", special situations, etc.

Or, just a sense of doing something different.  That spirit is alive and well.  Its just too gradual a rate of change for most of to appreciate.  You won't see a lot of the new stuff, but maybe we should all celebrate when we do find something different that works, not lament that their isn't more of it.  Because, if it works, we will see more of it, and pretty soon it will be everywhere and we will be searching for something new, like a new top 40 song for this month.

And, just to be positive, let's look at what has worked....well first thing comes to mind is jagged edge bunkers, but that is visual and not strategic.  Hmm.  I guess the last really big thing was bulldozers allowing RTJ to build heroic alternate route holes, whereas CBM (and others) had to find them.  Now we are bored with them.  I think the public course worked conceptually.  Sad to say, it worked so well, excess probably hurt it in the long run for now.....

Guess I am saying its hard to dissect it in one point of time, as everything is an ever changing continuum.  Yeah, I agree.  Those are no fun!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete,

It may be a hole can be too complex.  We don't know for sure if all the routes in Mac's prize winning entry would ever have been used, if built.  When holes like that were built, like Raynor's prize dogleg, I don't think (but never having seen it, just looking at maps) that all those options were in there....I think they boiled it down to two or three.

I guess I took Don a slightly different way.  There are many facets.  I felt the question is whether today's golfers have the ability to solve more complex puzzles, or if our USA Today mentality demands everything be simplified down.  If so, is modern design perfectly fit to the times?

Or, as per the prize dogleg hole, are some of us ascribing to much intelligence, subtle nuance and other nostalgic factors to our golfing forefathers?  After all, it was some of them who managed to allow architecture to change, or perhaps, just couldn't stop it.....

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - it seems to me that in our current period of gca history the general level of work has never been higher/better: there are many truly wonderful golf courses being built and dozens upon dozens of very good ones, and the vast majority of them are by architects who can (to greater/lesser degrees, and in various different ways) consistently create fields of play that not only provide plenty of strategic options but that do so in a very obvious (or let's say 'dramatic') way. In other words, I just don't see the USA Today mentality manifesting itself in golf course design over the last 25 years or so. What I do see (or think I see) is the opposite, ie that a true 'simplicity of design' (where the choices and options are less dramatic/obvious) has gone by the way-side, for various reasons including the need for courses to 'open' strong and the importance of magazine photo spreads in that regard.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Don,
All of the above discussions just confuse me more and more.  You begin by mentioning the "profession" of Golf course architecture.  I don't see it.  All of the really good courses have been "built" not designed, for lack of a better word IMHO.  The RTJ book convinced me more than ever.  There continues to be a smoke and mirrors effort to create a place in the process for the "50 pages of drawings "and it has been figured out.  (Jeff, I know we disagree on and I realize there are exceptions)  Look at your average local homebuilder.  They don't use architects directly.  they usually have a plan book and they purchase a set of plans and go from there.  We are at that point with most golf design.  We have trained so many good shapers and builders that they can do what is needed without an architect in the majority of cases.  Sure there will always be the few courses that rise above due to exceptional architecture and location and land just as there are those exceptional homes. 
Golf is one of the few construction related exercises that rarely seeks to build within boundaries that allow it to sustain itself financially.  Therefore the market will eventually correct such and find a product that works.  I sense that in correcting itself  the "professional" will not have a seat at the table that allows one to make a decent living.  I'm not sure there ever was.  Seems the modern day features and enhancements to golf courses put the strategic elements in the back seat way to often and most never know it. 

[Grant Saunders]

I think the "improvements" in course design techniques, construction capability, and especially the leap in course maintenance expectations has created a "box" that constrains much of the complexity that can make golf courses interesting. And we seem to have this opinion that golfers can't figure anything out on their own without the architect injecting features that are nothing more than sign posts. Aiming bunkers, mounds to separate and frame, lack of blindness, even partial blindness, all done in an attempt to make sure the golfer knows what lies ahead. How is any of that adding any strategic complexity? Even the breakthrough minimalist era is now becoming a bit stale as it seems all the young talent is either picking up the crumbs dropped my the masters, or trying to out do them at their own game. More of the same.

We are no doubt building some beautiful golf courses today. They function, they are pretty, but are they complex from a golf playing standpoint? We know they are complex construction projects, but I wonder if our building abilities hasn't tempered our imagination.

When the look powers over the golf, are we even designing golf courses anymore? Or large semi formal gardens that can accommodate a game?

I wonder if it is time to bypass the golden age and see if we can't find some influence from some of those pre-1900 obstacle courses?  

If a hole or course has lost some of it strategy due to the level of conditioning, possibly there existed little strategy to begin with?

Surely, a well thought out hole placing emphasis on angles and offering the player multiple options to choose from, can stand entirely on its own merits? If the intent of the hole can be completely overruled through the level of maintenance (acknowledging that certain extremes do exist) then I feel that probably there wasn't that much character in the first place.

Don, in your experience with construction, Im sure you have looked at a hole on a plan and instantly recognised the merits of that hole without even seeing it on the ground. Ditto seeing holes only rough shaped or even finished for seeding that immediately display a sense of strength and desire to play even without grass let alone mowing lines. To me, that's where the true strategies and complexities are found because they exist in the design not the maintenance.

[Don Mahaffey]

Grant,
when maintenance and conditioning expectations require that no water ever drain into a bunker or onto a green, that no sand be flashed up, that fwys must all have a certain slope within a tight range, that green slopes all stay within a tight range, that a very high % of the green must be pinnable, that bunkers must be a certain distance from greens surface, that greens must be built from a different soil than fairways and approaches, that bunkers must have ease of access for mechanical raking, and on and on.

These requirements are all rooted in assuring the best possible turf, the best possible conditions, but they impact design, which impacts strategy.



 

[Paul Gray]

Somebody had better tell the vast majority of golfers in the world that still play a game from the 1980's that the 21st century trend of minimalism is becoming s bit stale. And somebody had better tell Colt that any notion he had of enduring quality was merely an illusion. Some people always seem to want to turn everything into pop.

[Don Mahaffey]

Paul, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I don't think that minimalism is getting stale, but I do think it is in some cases being unduly influenced by the need to conform to rules that do not actually exist.

We celebrate the great courses here. There are many, many more courses out there that could be so much better with a lot less conformity and a little more imagination.

To all, in Crenshaw's intro, do you think he was referring to what was being built in the US pre-CBM?
Surly he is not referring to pre-1900 courses in the UK where many of the golden age masters got their influence?

[Grant Saunders]

Grant,
when maintenance and conditioning expectations require that no water ever drain into a bunker or onto a green, that no sand be flashed up, that fwys must all have a certain slope within a tight range, that green slopes all stay within a tight range, that a very high % of the green must be pinnable, that bunkers must be a certain distance from greens surface, that greens must be built from a different soil than fairways and approaches, that bunkers must have ease of access for mechanical raking, and on and on.

These requirements are all rooted in assuring the best possible turf, the best possible conditions, but they impact design, which impacts strategy

Why can a hole or course not incorporate those requirements and also exhibit strategy and interesting design? A certain level of restrictions can lead to creative solutions and thinking that may not be realised given a more unrestricted scenario.

[Paul Gray]

Don,

My point really is that conformity at the vast majority of clubs is still all about narrow fairways, turf killing tree lined corridors, artificial ponds and an obsession with making that bit where you put a tee in the ground and barely make contact with turf when striking a stationary object look more well groomed than a court at Wimbledon on day one. The notion of introducing minimalist/golden age principles to those clubs is still a long way away. And the vast majority of those clubs, rather than being worse for trying to follow those principles, would be significantly better.

I do however agree, if this is what you're saying, that any kind of conformity eventually becomes tiresome. I'm not sure however that it's the conformity in itself which makes it dull, certainly not when it's something as vastly variable as land, but more the fact that many people simply knock out poor imitations. Copying and creating are two very different things and only one of them will stand the test of time. To put it another way, there are no rules but you have to understand the rules in the first place to understand that there aren't really any rules.  

Hold on, I'll hand you over to Harry Colt:

The attempt at re-producing well known holes with hopelessly different materials is the most futile nonsense of the lot. How often have I seen a piece of ground suitable for a good short hole spoilt by a silly attempt at reproducing the 11th at St. Andrews!

OK, Colt was talking about individual holes but it makes the point that good golf which passes the test of time, and that was always HIS definition of quality, isn't achieved through imitation.  Principles of good architecture are therefore timeless, imitation gets found out.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

One of the interesting things about the reversible course is that we've had to go away from having as many bunkers as usual -- because you can't see them from both directions, and seeing them is apparently half the point!  In their place, we have introduced some moundy hazards like you would find at Garden City or Huntercombe, sometimes with sand on one or both sides, but often without the bunker.

It is telling that your opening post talks about "strategic complexity" because I think most people today equate complexity with "more" hazards.  At Sebonack, Mr. Nicklaus added quite a few bunkers to my original take on certain holes, to "increase strategy" for the members.  Golf strategy is not about the ability to solve complex puzzles, or about the need to dumb things down for the average golfer ... it's about giving him something reasonable to solve and then seeing if he can execute it.  As Dr. MacKenzie pointed out, putting more bunkers all over the place just gives the good player plenty of signals where to play, while giving the average golfer more places to trip up. 

The less the puzzles involve bunkers, the better.  And that's the sort of thing that doesn't show up on a plan at all ... it pretty much has to be found in the dirt.  Alas, as I've said somewhere here before, you see less and less of this because if a feature doesn't show up in the yardage book, the panelists will forget it when they're deciding how to rate a course.

[Tom_Doak]

Grant,
when maintenance and conditioning expectations require that no water ever drain into a bunker or onto a green, that no sand be flashed up, that fwys must all have a certain slope within a tight range, that green slopes all stay within a tight range, that a very high % of the green must be pinnable, that bunkers must be a certain distance from greens surface, that greens must be built from a different soil than fairways and approaches, that bunkers must have ease of access for mechanical raking, and on and on.

These requirements are all rooted in assuring the best possible turf, the best possible conditions, but they impact design, which impacts strategy

Why can a hole or course not incorporate those requirements and also exhibit strategy and interesting design? A certain level of restrictions can lead to creative solutions and thinking that may not be realised given a more unrestricted scenario.

That's true, but if you always have the SAME restrictions for every course, that does not lead to variety.

The two biggest obstacles to overcome from the modern playbook are the idea that no water should drain onto a green, and that green speeds should always be fast. 

In the first instance, it's a construction issue when you build sand greens surrounded by heavier soils ... you will get contamination of the greens mix from washouts and just normal drainage.  But this limitation means you cannot construct greens which gather an approach shot, or mounds right on the apron that will create a penalty for those on the wrong side of them.  Essentially, you have to have a swale all the way around the green, which really alters your options for defending short game play.  I've only been lucky to avoid this in a lot of my own designs because we were building on sandy soils, where having the apron drain onto the green is no big deal ... in fact, we've been so spoiled that my associates sometimes have difficulty following the rules when we're NOT building on sand.

In the second instance, the insistence on fast greens for everyday play has killed the variety of putting challenge that the old courses possessed in spades.  In the old days, hole locations were anywhere from flat to a 5% slope, so you'd see a few of them in each round that were really difficult, and a few that were pretty gentle.  Nowadays, the range is only from zero to 3% [some architects use zero to 2%], and anything at 2% or over is difficult at high speeds.  There's just no variety to that at all.

[Tim_Cronin]

There were barbed wire fences to cross on the leased land of the original Chicago Golf Club in Belmont in 1893. I don't think we want to go back to that. (There were also staircases to go over the fence, but still.)

[Joe_Tucholski]

I saw this picture on the abandoned train track thread (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=59929.0).  It was posted by Tyler Kearns.


I saw the picture and couldn't help but smile.  It's for sure what I would call an obstacle course hole, and I want to play it.  That being said if the whole course were filled with things like this I know I would hate the course.  It's a fine line between manufacturing a gimmick and manufacturing interesting features.  I'm sure quite a few would call that railway overpass a gimmick, so it can also be said that people have different levels of tolerance for unnatural things.  A big part of the reason I like to play golf is the walk in a natural setting.  I know most golf courses are built but my mind thinks they are natural.   Ironically a lot of people really like the RTJ course style (I have to admit I like them) because there are no gimmicks and the course is as they probably want to see the world - fair.

[Carl Rogers]

I invite all of you on this thread to read the Ballyhack thread for a specific example.  (complexities, obstacle course, strategy, uphill, downhill , sidehill, severe bunkers, the kitchen sink)