News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mark Pritchett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Water hazards speed up play. 

I have about 2 1/2 hours of evidence collected playing the first 6 holes at a water strewn wasteland Monday that would dispute this ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
and having watched the replay at PGA National-did any of Ian Poulter'd drops look "speedy"

I have not seen anything on the PGA Tour that I would call speedy. 

During weekly rounds when I (or other players) hit in the rough or woods a lot of time is spent looking for balls, while when a ball goes in the water, drop, hit, move on......

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
...
During weekly rounds when I (or other players) hit in the rough or woods a lot of time is spent looking for balls, while when a ball goes in the water, drop, hit, move on......

Sounds to me like Dr. Mac would not approve of your course. At mine, there is no time spent looking for balls in rough or woods. The rough is short, the woods are bare ground under the trees. However, hitting in the water requires extra time. Instead of proceeding directly towards continuing the play of the hole, time is taken to determine the drop location, making the drop within the rules, and then often taking a circuitous route to get back to the normal playing area.
"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

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Water hazards speed up play. 

I have about 2 1/2 hours of evidence collected playing the first 6 holes at a water strewn wasteland Monday that would dispute this ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
and having watched the replay at PGA National-did any of Ian Poulter'd drops look "speedy"

I have not seen anything on the PGA Tour that I would call speedy. 

During weekly rounds when I (or other players) hit in the rough or woods a lot of time is spent looking for balls, while when a ball goes in the water, drop, hit, move on......

All I can tell you is it took 2 1/2 hours to play/wait the first six holes which had water every hole-often both sides. The next six were played in just over an hour with no water, so somebody is spendinga lot of water time looking and dropping
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mark Pritchett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Water hazards speed up play. 

I have about 2 1/2 hours of evidence collected playing the first 6 holes at a water strewn wasteland Monday that would dispute this ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
and having watched the replay at PGA National-did any of Ian Poulter'd drops look "speedy"

I have not seen anything on the PGA Tour that I would call speedy. 

During weekly rounds when I (or other players) hit in the rough or woods a lot of time is spent looking for balls, while when a ball goes in the water, drop, hit, move on......

All I can tell you is it took 2 1/2 hours to play/wait the first six holes which had water every hole-often both sides. The next six were played in just over an hour with no water, so somebody is spendinga lot of water time looking and dropping

Tour pros take forever on any drop, water or otherwise.  My experience in casual golf is that players drop a ball quickly, hit and move on.  I am not a fan of too many water features on courses either. 

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
It's a golfing crutch for a lot of us. If you suck at golf and can't avoid water hazards, it's a whole lot more time consuming to get lessons, go to the range, get reps on the course, and overcome your sucktitude than it is to just say "Water hazards are poor architecture!" It takes the blame off you and puts it onto the architect. In an individual sport, being able to blame someone else for your own failure is rare and priceless.

I think you're hitting on something here, Jason. Not saying it's true in every case, but there are some holes I think are poor holes because of the way I've played them.

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
rather than use the term "overthinking", use the term "undisciplined thinking" or constrain yourself to doing 3 or 4 things well on a particular hole
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Peter,
I like that  ( reply#5).  
TD mentioned a couple of books on here a while back that I have now  read (Black Swan and Anti Fragile)  which basically discuss chaos.  There is a lot of chaos in GCA.  I really don't think many of the ODG's even realized some of the details that are contributed to them.  Now don't think I'm saying that were total spankers or anything like that....I'm saying so much is dredged up and brought to full discussion that they never considered for more than a few minutes.  I will use the example of walking a course one day with one of the guys on this site when he begam to get excited and explain to me where one of the ODG's had placed a bunker that was now lost.  Reality was that he had dynamited about 4 large oaks and they had sunk over the years giving it a nice bunker shape.  If left alone those things often become history.  OH well....

Mike:

I am happy to hear I've added to your reading base ... I recommended the same book to someone tonight.  But I don't think you got one of the points in Antifragile.  The author argues that the majority of great inventions are not the result of science, but of trial and error tinkering, a process which imitates the chaos and evolution found in nature.

That resonated with me because it's exactly what I've been doing for the last 20 years.  I'll give a shaper a chance to build a bunker or a green; if he does great it stays that way, if he doesn't I change it to something (hopefully) better.  I get way too much credit for being creative, but not enough for being a really good editor.  They have done a lot of great work, but you should have seen some of the crazy stuff my brilliant associates have tried to pass off over the years!

I agree with you that many of the great golf holes done by the ODG architects [and us living ones] are not a product of their genius and foresight, but of some foreman taking their ideas and making them even better.  Today we go one step further, and come back ourselves to edit the work of the foreman.  And I also agree that some features are just random chance that have grown to be genius with the passage of time, the maturing of trees, changes in equipment, etc.

But when you say that people are overthinking things, I don't think we are overthinking our designs by tinkering with them to make them better.  I think that's the key to the whole deal.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
TD,
Yep..I gave Anti Fragile to a couple of guys for Christmas...both are good books....
But I think I see it exactly how you explain it above....I try to behave in much the same way...Perhaps I should have rephrased the Topic.  I was not speaking of  the "overthinking" being in the design/construction but in the future discussions and history of a project.  It's sort of like when I see an instructional piece on Golf Digest written by a tour player trying to explain how he hits a shot and yet I know that the editor told him what to say and I know that at his talent level he has no clue how he performs the way he performs.  And his fans take it all in hook line and sinker.  I would wager that many on here would overthink how you came about your Streamsong greens ( or any chosen course) much more than you or your designer/shapers.  JMO...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Captain Kirk tells it like it is:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmagzq_get-a-life_fun

This is the classic Saturday Night Live "Star Trek Convention (Get a Life!)" skit with William Shatner.  Very funny for someone who spent a lifetime accumulating facts and thoughts about a few specific subjects.  I was reminded of this skit when asking somebody last month what the greatest unwalkable golf course was, to which he responded, "I hadn't thought about that", or something to that effect.

"I don't think we are overthinking our designs by tinkering with them to make them better.  I think that's the key to the whole deal."

As usual, I agree with Tom's last thoughts.  All that little stuff, every subtle detail that impacts play, or causes an interesting result, is fair game for discussion.  We've covered pretty much all the major architectural subjects.  I used to play a lot of recreational basketball after college.  A common practice was to head to the pizza parlor after games for pizza and beer.  Some guys liked to relive that night's game, talking abut certain plays and players.  Other guys were less interested in talking about themselves and the game afterwards, just happy to play and win and go home.  I really liked talking about the game afterwards, and gravitated towards teammates who liked to do the same.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 02:41:56 AM by John Kirk »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
"The author argues that the majority of great inventions are not the result of science, but of trial and error tinkering, a process which imitates the chaos and evolution found in nature."

Sounds like a good rationale to tinker with any architects course to me.

And, in general, I agree that most great courses we have today have evolved into something better than they started with.  While we talk about the misses, as part of human nature, in most cases, architects and greens chairmen can see what hasn't worked out as well as the original GCA had hoped, often for reasons beyond their control (and lifetime) and it is simply better to fix it.

Mike Young,

If you see Andrew next month, why don't you insist he read one of those books as payback/condition for any hospitality you extend to him.....just don't tell him it was my idea.  But, he needs to broaden his horizons a bit.

As to your original post, I agree in general.  I once wrote something to the effect that most golf architecture fans would be surprised to know that the biggest, and sometimes only consideration of most greens they putt was to get the water off the green in at least two, and no more than three directions.

While TD has the luxury of going back, taking time, etc. to modify his shapers work, which is all great, in the days of train travel, and in the modern "must be done by grassing dates" worlds, many greens were shaped by others, but never tweaked by the name architect. 

In some cases, drainage and those matters really did drive design, still do.  I have always felt the participants here over think what archies think.  I would love their passion on a project, but at the same time, wonder if we could ever come to a decision if they were involved!  Sometimes, ya just gotta make up your mind.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,

Your post brought a memory back to me, one that disappointed and educated me at the same time.

I was a construction superintendent, and it was the first direct access and expose I'd had with a golf course architect. I was awaiting the pearls of wisdom about design and playability so I could finally start to understand this whole obsession. We were walking the routing, and carrying plans. It was the first hole...the very first green we discussed before it was built. I asked something along these lines; "So what's the idea behind this green complex?". Response: "Well, we'll build a mound back here, and back here, and back here. Then we'll direct the surface water off here and here. That'll dictate our green". So I followed up with " So we don't care what club most golfers will be hitting the approach shot with, or what angle, or any of that stuff?". Architect: "Nope. This is all we need to have a good green." What a let-down. All this time I'd thought the architects were thinking of how the golfer would play the hole, only to be told we were actually doing landscape architecture that golfers would use(my thoughts, not his).

Fortunately, I've since learned there are other, deeper thinking architects out there, and I've had the blessing of working with several.

So, I guess I may need a wheelchair after all.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Overthinking isn't.

Incorrect thinking is.

Overthinking incorrect thinking is the worst.

 :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Joe,

I basically have had a similar experience in a couple of different ways, as an apprentice, as a co-designer, and as one who engages in architectural conversation to pursue my craft with other architects.  As I related on the Jay Morrish thread, having access to some great players minds has increased my knowledge exponentially, because my mentors were in the 1950's landscape architectural, practical first mode.

In one instance, I recall them crowning fairways as it was the lowest cost way to get water to drain, not realizing that it made for one very hard to hold fairway, especially after they downsized the irrigation system to meet budget, and it was typically dry.

Another architect of that era, whose course I remodeled a decade ago, drained fairways any which way to the nearest pond, even if it created a reverse slope fw that didn't hold and didn't show the fairway end very well.

And few really thought out the favorable shots such as discussed in that thread.  Water on the right of a green where the wind blows left?  Shallow green just over a pond on a downwind shot?  What's the Big Deal?  Let 'em play the course.  

In some cases, greens are getting rebuilt because golfers just can't play that kind of course.

So, that generation missed the golf value a bit, IMHO. That said, after renovation of La Costa, I did get a new appreciation of how well they did the technical factors that I think have somewhat gone by the wayside in the last two decades in favor of more visuals or even more minimalism.

In reality, no architect is capable of comprehending or considering all at one time, all the factors that go into a design, and tend to rely on their few go to considerations, sometimes at the expense of others. 

So, to answer George's pithy post, there is a fine line with tending to go with what you know works, and is safe, even if you MIGHT hit a home run with something different, and saying overthinking is some sort of crutch, although I  think MY was thinking of GCA fans.

That said, it would be hard in a room of 100 architects and players to say exactly what "incorrect thinking" is.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 12:07:01 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,

Your post brought a memory back to me, one that disappointed and educated me at the same time.

I was a construction superintendent, and it was the first direct access and expose I'd had with a golf course architect. I was awaiting the pearls of wisdom about design and playability so I could finally start to understand this whole obsession. We were walking the routing, and carrying plans. It was the first hole...the very first green we discussed before it was built. I asked something along these lines; "So what's the idea behind this green complex?". Response: "Well, we'll build a mound back here, and back here, and back here. Then we'll direct the surface water off here and here. That'll dictate our green". So I followed up with " So we don't care what club most golfers will be hitting the approach shot with, or what angle, or any of that stuff?". Architect: "Nope. This is all we need to have a good green." What a let-down. All this time I'd thought the architects were thinking of how the golfer would play the hole, only to be told we were actually doing landscape architecture that golfers would use(my thoughts, not his).

Fortunately, I've since learned there are other, deeper thinking architects out there, and I've had the blessing of working with several.

So, I guess I may need a wheelchair after all.

Joe
Joe,
I'll get you a parking place and a decal.... ;D ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
For some people intellectualizing something is just their way of appreciating it. Not necessarily a right or wrong approach, just the way they happen to do it.

Reminds me of a going-away party for someone I used to work with. In an inebriated state, she said to me "You know, when I first met you I thought you were a real snob. Now I realize that it's just the way you are." She seemed to mean it as a compliment......or maybe it just felt good to take it that way!
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
George,
As JB mentions.  I am speaking of the architectural fan not the architect.  IMHO there have been several instances on this site where overthinking has been published and may become revisionist history. 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
George,
As JB mentions.  I am speaking of the architectural fan not the architect.  IMHO there have been several instances on this site where overthinking has been published and may become revisionist history. 

Don't disagree with that at all, Sir Mike!

Hope you're well.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
George,
As JB mentions.  I am speaking of the architectural fan not the architect.  IMHO there have been several instances on this site where overthinking has been published and may become revisionist history. 

Don't disagree with that at all, Sir Mike!

Hope you're well.
Same to you also George...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back