[Peter Pallotta]

Every game of golf is an act of art which is expressed over a canvas created by an architect, presented by a greenkeeper and subject to weather.

Very nice. And whether intended or not, an apt metaphor for life itself. Perhaps that explains why some find the game so deeply satisfying.

When I first got to the University of Toronto, it had just completed a process whereby it split the (very long standing) Department of Political Economy into two separate (and over the years increasingly different) departments, i.e. the Department of Poltical Science and the Department of Economics -- both departments in the years that followed treating "politics"  and "economics" as two solitudes, one barely ever touching or even glacing over at the other.  To me, both fields of study lost a great deal by the change; and both lost their moorings in some semblance of reality.

Reminds me of a line that I've forgotten so that I have to paraphrase very freely: every profession justifies its own existence. If a group of grammarians gathered to discuss that cause of World War II, they'd conclude it was because Chamberlain had misunderstood Hitler's grammar.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Somehow this debate reminds me of the old insulting phrase, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

More seriously, Rich's post relating golf to a work of art has sympathy from Tom Watson, who told me (and I am sure countless others) that he regarded a tournament round as a work of art, and one that started the day before with making his mental checklist, eating and sleeping well, practicing correctly, etc.  Probably a bit more detailed than Rich had in mind.

And then, the natural corollary would be that in reality, we each do truly understand architecture in our own prism.  There can be no one single understanding of golf course architecture.........maybe there is not even one by an individual golfer, either, since as noted conditions and conditioning both play a factor in every round.

Or maybe, there is the simplistic, if I enjoyed it, it must be good architecture?

[David_Tepper]

For those interested in the "economics as a science" question, I highly recommend reading George Cooper's book Money, Blood and Revolution, published last year.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21598650-does-economics-need-rethink-revolutionary-fervour

[Keith Cutten]

The golf course architect needs to be an individual with 'many hats'.  He/she must have knowledge of biology, planning, engineering, hydrology and psychology. A sentiment echoed by (perhaps) the greatest golf architect of all time, Dr. Alister MacKenzie, who wrote back in 1920, in his book Golf Architecture, that, “golf architecture is a new art closely allied to that of the artist or sculptor, but also necessitates a scientific knowledge of many other subjects”.  However, as this thread is about process, it is MHO that scientific knowledge (now commonly referred to as evidence-based design) must help shape the process early on.  Otherwise, golf course design would be reactionary instead of proactive.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Every game of golf is an act of art which is expressed over a canvas created by an architect, presented by a greenkeeper and subject to weather.

As well as...

... Gravity, Conservation of linear and angular momentum, more success when applying the Bernoulli principle, adjustment for aerodynamic drag, tweaking of moments of inertia...

That I can think of off the top of my head.

[Rich Goodale]

Every game of golf is an act of art which is expressed over a canvas created by an architect, presented by a greenkeeper and subject to weather.

As well as...

... Gravity, Conservation of linear and angular momentum, more success when applying the Bernoulli principle, adjustment for aerodynamic drag, tweaking of moments of inertia...

That I can think of off the top of my head.

Jonathan

Please keep those swing thoughts in your head if and when we ever meet and play together.  And bring lots of dosh, too, as I I'm a bit short of funds at the moment....

[Jonathan Mallard]

Rich,

Will Zimbabwe Currency suffice? (You didn't specify relative value, only quantity!)

But, to the larger point, club equipment and ball manufacturers have embraced the study of the science behind the physics of the club/ball/course interaction. I'd go so far as to say to the chagrin and much teeth gnashing of more than a few folks on this board.

As I surmise it's out there to be delved into, why not look at the possible insights to be offered from the other side as a defense?

[Don Mahaffey]

The golf course architect needs to be an individual with 'many hats'.  He/she must have knowledge of biology, planning, engineering, hydrology and psychology. A sentiment echoed by (perhaps) the greatest golf architect of all time, Dr. Alister MacKenzie, who wrote back in 1920, in his book Golf Architecture, that, “golf architecture is a new art closely allied to that of the artist or sculptor, but also necessitates a scientific knowledge of many other subjects”.  However, as this thread is about process, it is MHO that scientific knowledge (now commonly referred to as evidence-based design) must help shape the process early on.  Otherwise, golf course design would be reactionary instead of proactive.

The modern day problem with Mac's sentiment is most architects will not wear all those hats and instead hand off much of that to specialists in each area. That fact is not talked about enough as while it may lead to highly functional golf courses with very nice grass, it also leads to a sort of assembly line mentality that can be the root of design compromises in an effort to get every functional detail right.
Serious question, how many of you have ever thought after a round, "boy that was a great round of golf because the golf course functioned so beautifully?"  I'm not saying function doesn't matter, because obviously it does, but there needs to be a balance and modern day golf course designing and building is dominated by the specialists instead of the artists.  Perfect functionality sure as hell isn't what stirs the soul and most architects would be much better served to attend to more of the functionality tasks themselves.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Otherwise, golf course design would be reactionary instead of proactive".

Keith, this statement could lead to a whole other topic, but in reality, GCA is both.  I have always felt that I do what I can with the approximate 90% reactionary design responses to allow myself the joy of the proactive 10% that is really fun.  And in some cases, reactionary is proactive at the same time, as in Ross wondering what he might do with all the new capacity of bulldozers, or modern architects realizing that HDPE drains were cheap enough to use more extensively.  Both changed the nature of design reactively and proactively.

Don,

I agree with you.  Having been the guy who has had a hand in writing the "industry standard" design agreements, standard builders specs, etc. I see the trend of more specialists and don't particularly care for it either.  At one point in writing the ASGCA sample agreements, I made the comment that we could easily have more pages saying what we won't do than saying what we would do. It didn't end up that way in the final draft, of course, but I had requests to specifically say the GCA won't design irrigation, cart paths, drainage. While I see irrigation design as being a separate component (although I used to do it myself) I fail to see how you can design a golf course without figuring out paths and drainage as you go and integrating it into the plan. 

IMHO, too many designers rely on the contractor to figure out the little details, as well.  Since I think I am better than most at those little details, I hate it when they do that, making others look better than they may really be.

There are compromises in every design, but as you say, making it functional and a good design is what we get paid the (formerly) big bucks for.  In reality, I have encountered very few situations where I felt it was an absolute design compromise.  Maybe I lean too much to the function side at times, but I know if I put a sand bunker between path and green, there will be worn spots on both sides.  I know I am not changing human nature, so I usually figure a way to move the bunker to a more functional location, knowing there are many ways a bunker can make for a good design.

BTW, I have had golfers comment on a course draining well enhancing their enjoyment - no wet shoes, getting out on the course the minute rain stops, etc.  So, they don't recognize it as part of the function, but as part of their enjoyment of the game, from their own prism.  But, its functionality at its best.  Like most of human nature, they usually comment when it negatively impacts them, LOL.

[Keith Cutten]

Don:

I could not agree with you more in regards to the modern issue of architects trapping themselves with “compromises in an effort to get every functional detail right”.  My point was that an architect does not need to be a specialist in everything, but should have a broad knowledge in all things important so that this does not occur.  If taken this way, I still feel Mac’s statement is more important than ever. 
As an example of my thinking… while the painter does not need to understand the chemical properties and ingredients needed to make paint, he/she must know which colours to mix in order to achieve an intended result. Further, it is the best artists that can make multiples of these decisions and combine them across a canvas to form an enduring work of art.  I see the art and science of golf architecture in the same light.  I do not feel that information necessitates a lack of creativity, in fact I think it is likely the opposite. 

In this I think we agree (?)

[Keith Cutten]

Jeff:

I agree that my statement: a) could likely start a new thread; and, b) is vague enough to be taken many ways! 

Golf course architects are always reactionary to their sites, a process which continues throughout the design and construction phases.  Equally, as you suggested, most architects are also proactive ensuring the best is being done for their clients.  To clarify, I intended to state that golf architects should embrace the available information at the start of a project (proactive) as opposed to allowing the permit, engineering and environmental systems to make narrow-minded recommendations (reactionary).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kieth,

I guess I agree in principle, but would also be hard pressed to find too many situations where a gca told the authorities to stuff it with their permit requirements.  Based on experience, I would say that they are usually negotiated to some degree, but the biggest thing that affects golf design is the no touch wetlands, which you just can't get around any more.  (Well, there are some ways, like buying wetland credits, where allowed, but not always available)

In all but a handful of dream sites and projects, it happens.

[Brent Hutto]

Serious question, how many of you have ever thought after a round, "boy that was a great round of golf because the golf course functioned so beautifully?"  I'm not saying function doesn't matter, because obviously it does, but there needs to be a balance and modern day golf course designing and building is dominated by the specialists instead of the artists.  Perfect functionality sure as hell isn't what stirs the soul and most architects would be much better served to attend to more of the functionality tasks themselves.

Serious answer. Not in so many "words", so to speak, but in visiting golf courses I do notice and appreciate things like well thought out flow of traffic between the parking, clubhouse, first (and/or ninth) tee, last green, etc. And I also notice when there are drainage basins that look out of place or sprinkler or drain grates that interfere with common lines of play. Not to mention cart paths can be total eyesores or not, depending on how much subtlety was employed in planning and executing them.

But your more important point is well taken. A boring golf course that functions nicely and is well thought out functionally is still a boring golf course. And if the course itself is fine enough, I will overlook almost everything else unless it impacts on the playing conditions (i.e. poorly done irrigation that leaves boggy spots or drainage that fails to drain properly in certain areas).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent,

I have told this story before, but I designed an unrealized project with John Fought a decade ago.  When considering the design for what was to be the 14th green, he wanted a bunker placed right, which I said wouldn't work because it was in the traffic flow from the cart path, and which he hadn't considered.  Then, I proposed a bunker at the back, which he noted would block walking traffic to the back tee, which I hadn't considered.

Not many folks realize the importance of good circulation on a golf course, but like paths and drainage, they usually can tell when it is not right.

I guess this illustrates that all kinds of functionality get considered at once with design.  In college, we used to lament that professors would point out practical items that "ruined" our "pure design."  But, please tell me what "pure design" is if absent functionality?  Even some Art, like outdoor art, has practical considerations, like being weatherproof.

I just saw Keith's last sentence to Don, and agree. The old saying that necessity is the mother of invention is true in golf architecture, too.  Sometimes, the greatest designs come from the most unique (seeming) limitations.  After all, absent any unique site features, the tendency might be to design the same thing that worked at the last place, just like we tend to get into habits of brushing our teeth before dressing, or whatever.

[Carl Rogers]

Brent, your last comment speaks to "craft and detail" of design work.  Important for sure.

In my simple mind, science has to do with an anticipated set of effects caused by controlling inputs. 

The creative recognizes that the inputs are variable and sometimes random, thus the effect will be at some level a surprise (good or bad).

The strength of the Mac-Raynor-Banks template hole formulas are their familarity and their element of surprise, both at the same time.

[Mark Pavy]

Is Golf Course Architecture Just a Science We Can't Yet Quantify?

Yes.

We've just never explored the relationship between spatial appreciation and golf.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Well.

Today, I got a memorandum from the Colorado board about Grading Certifications and Grading Design Certifications. I checked, and there is no link on their website yet, but I imagine it will appear soon.

Anyway

Please be advised that the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers, and Professional Land Surveyors (“Board”) considers grading certifications and grading design statements that include language stating or implying that the grading design accurately reflects the design intent of an approved grading plan, that the grading will or will not cause storm water damage, or that the lot will drain adequately to constitute the practice of engineering.

 

As the design, evaluation, and analysis of grading and/or drainage plans are considered the practice of engineering, these plans should be prepared by an engineer utilizing data provided by a professional land surveyor. Preparing grading and drainage plans is not within the scope of the practice of land surveying. If a land surveyor makes a certification on a grading or drainage plan, it should be limited to determined elevations of land parcels and must not contain statements of engineering design, evaluation, or analysis.

 

An individual who, without being licensed as a Colorado professional engineer, prepares, signs, or seals such a grading design statement violates state statute and may be subject to legal action by the Board, including but not limited to a cease and desist order or injunction. Professional land surveyors who are not also licensed as a Colorado professional engineer are not authorized to engage in the practice of engineering.

 

The following is an example of a grading certificate or statement that may be signed or sealed by a person who is not a licensed professional engineer: “The grading for the lot shown hereon accurately reflects the design of the approved area grading plan prepared by [engineering firm].”
 

While I get that there is no mention of Golf Courses anywhere in that, I don't see it as a stretch to argue that the grading related to drainage could be interpreted as falling under their jurisdiction.

[abmack]

Andrew:

The problem with your theory of golf is the same as the problem with economics:  the assumption that all the players always act rationally is just completely wrong. 

Hardly anyone really understands the odds involved in their risk-taking.  In golf, 98% of players over-estimate their ability and take more risks than would be rational.  In economic spheres, systemic risk is underrated or ignored, even though it produces catastrophic results once every few years.  Of course, the same people build beach houses in Florida, knowing they will have made enough money in between disasters to rebuild everything, with the help of low-interest government disaster loans.

P.S.  One of my interns studied game theory; I'd guess that has some application to golf design, too, but you have to correct for the fact that 90% of people are not out there grinding to shoot their lowest score every time.  They just want to have fun.

Tom,

I completely agree. One of my fundamental beliefs is that golfers behave incredibly irrationally on the golf course. I am working on a paper to be submitted for a behavioral economics workshop here at Harvard which looks at how golfers systematically behave irrationally and then, first, seeks to characterize the risk profiles of individual golf holes, then tries to identifies which kinds of hole induce players to take the most risk. I believe that these are the best kinds of holes. The quintessential example is 16 at Cypress Point. No score-minimizing golfer would ever attempt to go for the green, as evidenced by Ben Hogan's strategy for playing the hole. Most people still try and that's fun. This is a hole where the player's utility from the thrill of trying a stupid shot significantly outweighs the desire for a low score. These sorts of considerations can be accounted for in a risk model. (another good example is 12 at Barnbougle Dunes, I think you may have seen it)

Holes which provide a safe but boring option and an alluring option which is too tempting to pass up despite the relatively poor odds of success are the spice of good golf courses. I haven't made up my mind as to whether this sort of dilemma should be present to some extent on every hole. My goal is to develop a framework for assessing holes so that this risk-reward quality can be quantified.

I haven't spent enough time refining my ideas but I'll have time to do this in the course of writing this paper. I'll probably post it on GCA when it is finished.

ABM

[William_G]

GCA will never be a science in and of itself yet there is and will be science applied to the art of golf course design and build

[David_Tepper]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the NY Times is running an article entitled "Are Economists Overrated?"

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/09/are-economists-overrated?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

I like the description of economics as a "pseudo science," by two guys from Harvard no less!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()