News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« on: February 11, 2015, 11:11:36 PM »
I've recently finished reading James Hansen's "A Difficult Par," a biography of Robert Trent Jones. I think the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the history of golf course architecture, as Jones' influence on the game and on players' attitudes toward courses was simply unparalleled.

There are numerous revelations in the book that I think are worthy of discussion. The first that stands out arises in chapter 5, "A Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture." In this chapter, Hansen summarizes Jones' design theory as outlined by Jones in a 1938 marketing booklet that he published titled "Golf Course Architecture." Jones' booklet offers numerous revelations about his design philosophies and opinions, some predictable considering the ideals he came to embody later while others are perhaps more surprising. I've paraphrased several of them below:

* Early British inland courses stunk because they failed to preserve the charming, natural features of the seaside links. Many early builders of inland courses in America committed the same mistakes, with "hideous" militaristic construction featuring systematically dug, trench-like traps and straight-faced mounds. Thankfully, modern architects had begun to rediscover the "subtle features of strategic architecture."

* The goal of modern architecture is "to create a balanced hole for the various classes of golfers... the majority of whom are average golfers punished far out of proportion to their playing skill (on most courses of the past)."

* Fairway traps under 200 yards from the tee offer little challenge to the crack golfer, while they punish the average golfer. Traps at short distances should be moved to make play for the average golfer less punishing without spoiling the character of the course or playing value for the expert.

* A problem with the old "penal" school of architecture occurs near the green, where the surfaces are flat and "surrounded by a maze of clam-shell traps with a bottle-neck entrance" such that the golfer "had no choice other than to hit a perfectly executed shot to the green." The average golfer was "doomed before he started" on such courses. Jones instead favored diagonally-oriented traps that allowed weaker players to set up an angle of approach that was in their ability while the strong player could play strategically and situationally manage the risk and reward of such a bunkering scheme.

* Another problem with the old penal school: A player could hit a shot only slightly off-center and catch a "deep, ugly trap" while a shot badly missed would avoid trouble and enable a simple up-and-down. To correct this, Jones advocated for mounding that offered some forgiveness to slight misses and repelled more substantial misses.

* "Certain traps should have real penal value while others only a psychological effect so that a hole often plays more easily than it would seem at first glance."

* Surfaces of greens should be undulating in character and with a harmony between the lines of the framework of the green (any mounding and shaping surrounding) and the green surface. The environs should have a natural appearance.

* Fairways should be at their narrowest where the strong players' drives land, and wider for the weaker player.

* Strategic design is the ideal, as opposed to penal design. For his example of strategic design, Jones used the Long hole at St. Andrews and described how bunkers and trouble challenge the shortest routes to the hole while weaker players can tack and plot their way around the hazards with smart play.



Having not played many RTJ courses, I found this written philosophy interesting and I'm interested in others' reactions to his ideas. How strongly did Jones' early work adhere to these principles? How much did his later work reflect the same principles? How does his understanding of the strategic school vs. the penal school of architecture compare to the way we currently view those principles? And how much merit does RTJ's philosophy possess?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2015, 01:36:35 AM »
"Don't what I do, do what I say" seems the obvious comment

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2015, 05:49:11 AM »
Jason

I guess my biggest overall issue with RTJ's doos and don'ts is the ease with which all courses can start to look very similar.  I think there is plenty of room in architecture for militaristic construction, fairway traps under 200 yards from the tee, for fairways to be at their narrowest where the weak players' drives land, and wider for the stronger player, random results when a shot is missed, flat or flat looking greens, penal design and not much room for containment mounding. 

I know everybody has to have a philosophy to work by, but care should be taken not over-prescribe that philosophy to the point of creating homegenity in design.  As we look back at the RJT period of design its hard to say there many positive results compared to the classic and contemporary periods.  I can't help but think that part of the reason for this is due to RTJ.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2015, 06:30:26 AM »
Interesting although Jones would have been only 32 when this was published. He lived to age 94.
atb

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2015, 10:56:53 AM »
Sean, I generally agree. Reading through Jones' accounts of course design, it seems like a lot of times he was trying to build the same holes over and over again. His "strategic" holes seem to have focused on one of two concepts: choosing whether or not to challenge a narrowed landing area, or choosing how much of a diagonally oriented hazard to "bite off." Again, I haven't played enough Jones courses to make that observation firsthand. I'm merely noting the "strategic" ideals he trumpets in his writing and those attributed to him in the biography.

I also wonder if his sympathy for the weaker player dwindled over the coming years, as he became known as "The Open Doctor" and as he carried out renovations and new designs with professional tournaments in mind. It seems like he gradually developed a bit of a disdain for club members in the process, or at least the ones who objected to some of his design ideals.

Regardless of any other downsides to his design approach, did his courses actually meet the goal of accommodating the weak player while challenging the strong? Did his early courses pull this off more than his later courses?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2015, 11:33:47 AM »
Jason - thanks, you seem to have done a very good job of sumarizing his thoughts/writings. And, while I believe RTJ meant every word he wrote, my only reaction is "I guess the devil is in the details".  And that applies to every architects, of course -- since I can't think of a single architect in the 20th century who promoted top-shot bunkers or who offered golfers no other choice but to hit perfectly  executed shots or who didn't provide some forgiveness for slightly off-centre hits or who didn't include hazards of both a real/penal  nature and a psychological/visual one or who didn't believe in undulating greens with natural looking environs. In other words, as I've noticed that every single modern architect signs from exactly same song-book, I've grown much less interested in the song book and figure that their actual songs are the only thing worth considering. Interestingly, though, I'd bet that if I played some of RTJ's early designs -- with the words you've summarized above fresh in my mind -- I'd probably find that his song-book and his song did in fact match....but perhaps not in the way I personally would want them to match.

Peter 

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2015, 11:40:28 AM »
I have not played enough RTJ courses to accurately comment, but I wonder what the Sr./Jr. affect has had on his philosophy.  Meaning, I'm not sure where Sr. ends and Jr. begins.  Perhaps RTJ Jr.'s courses have distorted the view on RTJ Sr.'s

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2015, 12:33:40 PM »
Which RTJ Sr. courses are considered to be his archetypes? His career was so long and large number of courses were necessarily built under his imprimatur but with the actual details were designed by the firm and not him directly. It is natural that there were many courses that were similar since that was what the brand was selling.

What 5 courses as they sit on the ground today would best educate me in the work of the man and not the firm?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2015, 07:07:44 PM »
What happened to "heroic"? I thought he said he was a proponent of heroic holes, but this so called "modern" theory of golf architecture doesn't mention it.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2015, 07:58:48 PM »
Nice catch.  Hansen actually discusses this issue.  At page 100 he notes Jones failure to mention the heroic school or theory.  he posits that this idea evolved as a middle ground between the penal and strategic schools emerging in the 1940's most notably at Peachtree and the Dunes.  See pages 149-150,160,163-164.

My take is that the brochure referred to in the first post was a "sales" piece and reflected more Thompson, the mentor, than Jones, the student even though there was a lack of attribution.  over time, Jones developed additional views, for better or for worse.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2015, 08:07:37 PM »
...My take is that the brochure referred to in the first post was a "sales" piece and reflected more Thompson, the mentor, than Jones, the student ...

That's what I was guessing.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2015, 10:15:57 AM »
Jim, the list of courses he designed is so long that it's hard to narrow it down. I think some combination of Spyglass Hill, Peachtree, Mauna Kea, Sotogrande, and Vidauban would be a nice look at a few of his original designs, but you could replace any of those with any of about 20 other courses and still get a good look. Given how much renovation and restoration work he did, I'd think you might also want to see places like Firestone and Congressional and certainly Oakland Hills.

Josh, I'm in a similar boat as I've only played one or two courses from each. However, according to Hansen, Jones Jr. was probably a little friendlier to the higher handicap player and less preoccupied with the "difficult par" concept. Hansen also makes it clear that part of the blurring between where Sr. ends and Jr. begins was intentional on the part of Jr., and a major contributor to his rivalry with Rees. Rees (and the rest of the family) didn't appreciate a lot of Jr.'s promotion that deliberately tied his own reputation to that of his father's work.

Shel, I think you're correct about the "brochure" referenced being as much a marketing piece as anything, and it was no doubt highly influenced by Thompson. Still, the question remains whether Jones' work reflected the ideals he outlined, both at the time of writing and in the future. I really don't know the answer there, but from what little I've seen, it seems that a lot of his work generally followed these concepts. I'm just not sure how closely he adhered to them over time, and I don't have a good feel for how much his work evolved as he grew in experience. My initial impression has always been that Jones largely designed around the same tropes over and over again, but I don't know whether that's a fair assessment at all based on my limited experience with his work.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2015, 10:42:15 AM »
I guess I'm one of the few on here that actually likes some RTJ courses.  I even like some JJ on Rees courses also.  The RTJ courses of the mid 60's to early 70's era seemed to be pretty good courses to me.   The Heather course at Boyne, Point of Wods, original UGA Jones course, and a few others I have played were all good golf courses.   And I can say the same for most of the Rees courses and the few JJ course I have played.  So I don't have much of a problem with his theories and his actual products of the 60's and 70's.  The Trail courses didn't do it for me. 
What the book brought out the most to me was a sense of insecurity in the guy.  You could sense that he really didn't think anyone else should be designing except for himself .    The Jones name became such a brand in golf design that it could intimidate media , USGA and even clients who did not know the subject matter which is most people. 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2015, 11:21:05 AM »
Am going to re-read applicable sections this weekend, but here are a few thoughts: (sorry for colored type)

* Early British inland courses stunk because they failed to preserve the charming, natural features of the seaside links. Many early builders of inland courses in America committed the same mistakes, with "hideous" militaristic construction featuring systematically dug, trench-like traps and straight-faced mounds. Thankfully, modern architects had begun to rediscover the "subtle features of strategic architecture."

Pretty standard mid century stuff railing against the geometric look. Still the dominant thought in GCA, although Pete Dye is quoted as saying RTJ did all curves, and when he saw a straight ditch at Prestwick 18, he realized that is how he could differentiate his style.  So it influenced modern architecture in a few different ways.

* The goal of modern architecture is "to create a balanced hole for the various classes of golfers... the majority of whom are average golfers punished far out of proportion to their playing skill (on most courses of the past)."

Yes, and the next few points flesh this out a bit.


* Fairway traps under 200 yards from the tee offer little challenge to the crack golfer, while they punish the average golfer. Traps at short distances should be moved to make play for the average golfer less punishing without spoiling the character of the course or playing value for the expert.

Agreed. Why add bunkers if the shot length left to the green already prevents you from reaching, penalizing you one stroke?  Occasional "fore" bunkers work for many reasons, but aren't such a good idea that you would use them religiously.


* A problem with the old "penal" school of architecture occurs near the green, where the surfaces are flat and "surrounded by a maze of clam-shell traps with a bottle-neck entrance" such that the golfer "had no choice other than to hit a perfectly executed shot to the green." The average golfer was "doomed before he started" on such courses. Jones instead favored diagonally-oriented traps that allowed weaker players to set up an angle of approach that was in their ability while the strong player could play strategically and situationally manage the risk and reward of such a bunkering scheme.

I wonder if the narrow entrance and clam shell bunker reference was as shot at Robert Bruce Harris?  In any case, he did believe in defending par at the green with big contours and multi sectioned greens, and usually, not always, left run up areas.  The rolling greens almost sound like the Doak mantra, and were and still are valid, albeit with green speeds flattening contours in general.  I generally agree with this, but also wonder (like others) how much his fame as Open Doctor got him thinking more of the championship venue side of his creations, possibly with his clients egging him on, as we see later with Dye, etc. Everyone wanted a harder/better course than his last. In those days, harder and better seemed to be synonymous.

* Another problem with the old penal school: A player could hit a shot only slightly off-center and catch a "deep, ugly trap" while a shot badly missed would avoid trouble and enable a simple up-and-down. To correct this, Jones advocated for mounding that offered some forgiveness to slight misses and repelled more substantial misses.

Actually a pretty logical defense of fw side and green back containment mounding........

* "Certain traps should have real penal value while others only a psychological effect so that a hole often plays more easily than it would seem at first glance."

Agreed, as variety is the spice of life.  I don't recall any too deep bunkers on the RTJ courses I have played. IMHO, he and Wilson started the "more is better" and "shallow to moderate depth mitigates the sheer number of bunkers we use" theory.  I have always thought one hole per course (or so) ought to have just one truly terrifying bunker, another a lot of bunkers, and most somewhere in between.  I also think in terms of the "master bunker" the one that is deeper that really needs to be avoided, even as there are other, more cosmetic, bunkers on the hole.

And while speaking of variety, I think the biggest weakness of the 1950's era was all tree and lawn panel golf courses, no ragged areas, and the reliance on sand and water as the sole hazards.  Certainly, the Ross grass traps and mounds, and the expanded fairways around the greens from Scotland couldn't have been totally forgotten.  I guess they just wanted to place their own stamp on design or separate post WWII design, but they sure missed some good themes that might have made their designs better.  (I still recall a 1966 or so HH Wind article in Golf Digest wondering where the Ross style chipping areas went in GCA......)


* Surfaces of greens should be undulating in character and with a harmony between the lines of the framework of the green (any mounding and shaping surrounding) and the green surface. The environs should have a natural appearance.

Hard to disagree, but again, his sheer volume of work led to some repetition, and seeing the same bunkering pattern over again takes away any notion of natural.


* Fairways should be at their narrowest where the strong players' drives land, and wider for the weaker player.

Again, hard to disagree, in general.  The longer players statistically hit it straighter, too, so a hole with a narrow LZ at 270-310 and wider under 260 yards allows one course to play well for both good and poor players.  But agree again that over and over again it can get boring.  Certainly designing those championship courses seemed to take away the emphasis on any cross bunkers and carry hazards changed from sand to water only under RTJ.  I know many here love fw width, but the game because about accuracy for championships.  Ultra wide fairways just require too much defense at the green for top players, and thus some kind of balance of tee shot challenge and putting challenge supplemented the difficulty of angles of approach in their minds as the best approach.  Especially if they varied the tee shot challenge for average golfers and allowed some measure of forgiveness at the approach shot.  You know, as hard as I try to agree with the "width is the be all, end all of golf architecture"  I come to more of the balanced approach conclusion as being best, too.

* Strategic design is the ideal, as opposed to penal design. For his example of strategic design, Jones used the Long hole at St. Andrews and described how bunkers and trouble challenge the shortest routes to the hole while weaker players can tack and plot their way around the hazards with smart play.

Again, hard to disagree, but harder to see it in his work.  His courses are generally hard, for reasons already discussed.  There are just so many more tee shot strategies out there to use a few times per course than pinching the LZ on both sides.  While I am sure that stereotype is now overplayed as our memories of RTJ and his work fade a bit, he did it enough to create the stereotype (although, I could make the case that Dick Wilson, and then his protégés Joe Lee, etc. did more of the bracketing than even RTJ.)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2015, 03:50:00 PM »
I and friend on this site, Scott Weersing, on this site have only played at the Golden Horsehoe in Williamsburg, VA several times.  In a neat retro way we both like it.  But TD in the first Confidential Guide nailed it pretty well when he stated that the site is too narrow, trees too close by and some of the holes do not quite differentiate themselves well enough.

To the point of other comments on this thread, I think one of the great challenges of this field is to design holes that give the weaker golfer something to do (that they can do) not overwhelm or frustrate them.
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2015, 04:58:35 PM »
Jeff, specifically on the topic of long hitters hitting the ball straighter on average - that's certainly true today, and I wonder if it was even more true in Jones' heyday. I'm too young to have had much experience with persimmon woods. I owned one when I was four and that's about it. But given that it was harder to hit consistently, I wonder if the flailing hacker who generates lots of swing speed but only hits it flush once a round or so was as prevalent at that time.

Pinching fairways around the landing area for high swing speed guys today would get monotonous and also really punishing to those flailers who bomb it all over the place. But if those guys weren't as prevalent in RTJ's day, then his peanut-shaped fairways would certainly have done the job of keeping the course playable for weak players while challenging strong players. It's not the most exciting or creative way to do it, but it certainly works.

Mike, I think the book's greatest contribution is it's look into Jones' psychology. The insecurity was a big part of that, as you mention, but also the wide-eyed naivete and optimism, the juxtaposition of his marketing genius against his total lack of business acumen, and his odd relationships with friends and family. His self-absorption, for lack of a better term, was just flabbergasting at times.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2015, 06:47:32 PM »
***" Fairways should be at their narrowest where the strong players' drives land, and wider for the weaker player".

_____________________________________________________________________________________

"Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers.  They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom to play.

There is no defined line between the fairways in the great schools of golf like St. Andrews or Hoylake.

It is a common error to cut the rough in straight lines.  It should be in irregular, natural-looking curves.  The fairways should gradually widen out where a long drive goes;  in this way a long driver is given a little more latitude in pulling and slicing". 1920 - Mackenzie
Joe


"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide".

- Mike Nuzzo

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2015, 08:49:55 AM »
What the book brought out the most to me was a sense of insecurity in the guy.  You could sense that he really didn't think anyone else should be designing except for himself .   

Mike:

Did you ever spend time with Mr. and Mrs. Jones?  I assumed that you did, because of the family connection.

The first time I visited his office, on my return from the UK in 1983, he assumed I would want to work for "the best in the business" -- meaning himself of course.  I did not see it then as a sign of insecurity, but can understand how it would be now.  It was a real turn-off after having worked a bit for Mr. Dye while I was still in school.  Reading about RTJ's travails through the Depression was pretty enlightening, but it seems that his attraction to people with power and money was what really drove him [and, ultimately, drove his business].  I gather that his business success being pushed back into his 40s and 50s had a lot to do with his m.o.; he was very much a romantic in his younger days, but the timing wasn't right for him to work that way.

I am glad I did spend a couple of days with him later on, which softened my impression of him considerably, especially the time I got him talking about his visits with MacKenzie and Tillinghast [though not at The Scores Hotel] and Donald Ross.  He's the only person I ever met who had a one-on-one conversation with those guys about golf architecture.  After reading the book I am glad I got to have dinner with Mrs. Jones the one time at Coral Ridge, too.  She knew everything about the business but I hadn't realized she was so involved in it all.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2015, 10:43:24 AM »
Mike,

My impression from the few times I met him was that he was always about at least partially suppressing the competition.  He came to a few ASGCA meetings solely to let everyone know to vote against this guy or the other.  When I was membership chair, he asked me to breakfast one day.  We had a nice conversation where he seemed to know more about me than I would have ever imagined.  He complimented my work in the field and within ASGCA.  He then told me he wouldn't be there for the membership vote, but would like me to put his votes in for him.  I agreed and pulled out a notepad, to which he responded, "No need, my votes are no, no, no, no, no, and no. I think you can remember that."

Like Tom, I treasure my few moments like that with Trent.  My first was at age 12, when I wrote about a potential job and got a nice letter back from him encouraging me. (probably sort of standard, and only signed by him, but I was thrilled).  Another moment was at the 1995 Ryder Cup where I had dinner with him and Junior.  He went on and on explaining the changes he had made to Oak Hill.  RTJ II a few times suggested maybe his memory was vague, but Jones shut him down, saying "You weren't there Bobby, but that is EXACTLY how it happened."

He was like a politician in how he made you feel as the most important man in the room, even if it was just to get something from you. No doubt he was the master marketer and salesman.  Rees inherited that skill, too.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2015, 11:28:57 AM »
Tom,
I did get to spend time with him twice.  When my wife's cousin got married in the late 86 or 87 he and his wife hosted the wedding and dinner at Turnberry Isle.  He was a very cordial and gracious host.  The bride's father (John Schmeisser who he mentions in the book) was going thru cancer treatments and he was very good about getting him to where he needed to be.    I sat dancing and dinner with him for almost four hours and enjoyed talking to him.  He did not like any architects and Mrs Jones was constantly reprimanding him for his comments...the pair was actually funny but you could tell she held the reigns...I enjoyed the stories and was naive enough at the time to not realize much of what was going on. 
The second time was 10 minutes at Coral Ridge and he was sort fo out of it....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2015, 11:34:43 AM »
He then told me he wouldn't be there for the membership vote, but would like me to put his votes in for him.  I agreed and pulled out a notepad, to which he responded, "No need, my votes are no, no, no, no, no, and no. I think you can remember that."

That is the best RTJ story I've ever heard.  Funny, telling, and sad all at once.

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2015, 04:35:43 PM »
"Again, hard to disagree, in general.  The longer players statistically hit it straighter, too, so a hole with a narrow LZ at 270-310 and wider under 260 yards allows one course to play well for both good and poor players.  But agree again that over and over again it can get boring.  Certainly designing those championship courses seemed to take away the emphasis on any cross bunkers and carry hazards changed from sand to water only under RTJ.  I know many here love fw width, but the game because about accuracy for championships.  Ultra wide fairways just require too much defense at the green for top players, and thus some kind of balance of tee shot challenge and putting challenge supplemented the difficulty of angles of approach in their minds as the best approach.  Especially if they varied the tee shot challenge for average golfers and allowed some measure of forgiveness at the approach shot.  You know, as hard as I try to agree with the "width is the be all, end all of golf architecture"  I come to more of the balanced approach conclusion as being best, too. - Jeff Brauer

Jeff, I'm not disagreeing with you that the top players require more defense on the greens than your average bird, but when you say "top", who are you referring to?  The top .005%?  That is where I keep having a disconnect when 'too much' width is mentioned.  It seems the focus is always on people that don't pay for their rounds/dues (PGA pros, mini-tour pros, college kids) and the rest have to suffer so these guys don't shoot routine 62's instead of 66's. 
Joe


"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide".

- Mike Nuzzo

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2015, 01:35:56 PM »
Joe,

We agree that somewhere, RTJ got focused on those 0.005% who are tour players.  I guess we all do, more than we should and design the 300 yard LZ narrow, and the wider 250 yard LZ is wider.

I guess you (and Mike Nuzzo, via your tag line) would have to define "too wide."  Forget the tour pros, I believe it is possible that a fw is too wide when its width can't be taken in easily by the eye, and when the extra width really does no good. 

I have given examples before, but if you take out a sketch pad, and draw two holes, one with green angled say 5 degrees to Centerline, and the other with green at 25 degrees.  Assume the strategy is to aim as far to the outside edge of the fw as possible to get an open green front.  It goes up with the distance of approach, and a fw where you anticipate a 200 yard approach needs to be twice as wide as one with a 100 yard approach. 

That said, you will find that the fw edge only needs to go so far to attain that advantage, no? Is there any real advantage to making it fw further right (or left)?  At some point, you overshoot the mark and come up with a poorer angle.

You will also find that the 5 deg. green requires narrower fw than the 25 deg. green.

So, in the name of economy, why not angle greens less and narrow fairways to reduce maintenance costs?  Reduce irrigation needs in this and future water starved times?  Reduce construction cost?  (I understand that some shorter holes, and maybe the occasional longer hole just for variety could use a green up to 90 deg. across the line of play)

And, again, tell me what wide is?  I tend to go back to the early days of American golf, where the play corridor was set by the max sprinkler throw of those old centerline sprinkler, usually 180 feet/ 60 yards.  Then, double row at 65-70 ft. spacing made fairways about 120-140 feet wide, where coverage was good, and the rough getting coverage to about 200 feet.  Corridor slightly wider, but fw slightly narrower. Typically green designs followed suit.

Interesting question as to why so many clubs and designers bunker greens for the top 1% or less.  I guess no one wants anyone shooting 62 on their course if a top level tournament comes to town. I don't agree its worth toughening up a course for that, but obviously many do.  So, we agree.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2015, 01:48:38 PM »
I believe it is possible that a fw is too wide when its width can't be taken in easily by the eye, and when the extra width really does no good. 

I would agree with the second half of that statement, but profoundly disagree with the first half.

Creating something that can't be taken in easily by the eye creates confusion in the golfer's mind, which is exactly what you want when you create a wide fairway.  [Obscuring part of the fairway does the same thing.]  The whole point is to make it hard for them to identify the ideal place to drive the ball, either because their eye doesn't lead them to it, or because they are lulled into believing it doesn't matter.  A lot of the wide fairways at Streamsong work so well because if you don't hug one side or the other, a contour steers your ball even further off the ideal line, and you're left with a terrible angle over a contour or bunker to get at the hole.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2015, 01:55:30 PM »
TD,

I guess it depends on what kind of course you are designing.  I played Old American with Tripp Davis and he explained a similar philosophy of hiding fairways.  I understand it, but might not use it often on a resort many are going to play one time, unless maybe with a caddy.  Or a public course, except maybe once or twice for interest.  For most public golfers, golf is hard enough as it is. 

But different strokes.....
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach