Architectural Basics I somehow never noticed until now - Part 2

[Peter Pallotta]

I realized recently that visual presentation and aesthetics are the difference between a good golf hole and a very good/great golf hole. 

Take a strategically sound golf hole, a Par 4. Have a fairway bunker left, for those opting for the ideal line in, and the requisite green-side bunker right, and an interestingly-contoured green to complete the package. A good hole - but a straight-forward one, and for a golfer in fine form it offers mostly/only the challenges and satisfaction of hitting good shots.

But take that fairway bunker on the left and blur its edges and bleed them widely into the surrounding fairway and rough/waste area (such that it appears much bigger than it really is); and then manage to erase the lines along the right hand side of the fairway, blending them almost indistinguishably into the rough/waste area on that side (such that the right side now doesn't appear as safe as it once did); and then build-up the back-edge (i.e. the side closer to the green) of that green-side bunker, so that if you're approaching it from the right a good portion of the green is unseen/hidden behind it (so that the golfer's depth perception is now a bit skewed); and then shave down the opening of the green for a kind of false-front/run-up opportunity (so as to seem to offer the golfer yet another choice); and then clear away any and all foliage no matter how modest from anywhere near the back side and left side of that green (so that one fears that a ball hit a bit too long or left will roll on forever and ever).

And what do you have now, after these 5 essentially visual/aesthetic changes? You have the same good golf hole that now also gets the golfer a little more confused, and has him doubting himself and his choices, and fretting on both his drive and his approach, and his heart beating faster as he intently watches his approach and wonders "where is it, where'd it land?". What you have now is not only a good golf hole but a very good one.   

Which is simply to state what should have been obvious to me, i.e. yes, sometimes visuals and aesthetics are indeed no more than "eye candy"; but sometimes - in smart and talented hands -- they are precisely the difference between a good golf hole and a very good/great golf hole. The "strategy" is the same for both those par 4s; but the "experience" is night and day different. And I'm taking the "experience" every single time.

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -


Well done. I think of gca in much the same way.


I am surprised, however, by how many in the profession get the aesthetic part right, but not the strategic foundation part. (I think that applies to many commentators here at GCA as well. See, for example, the thread a week or so ago about the fact that bunker "looks" seem to generate more interest than how well they are placed and their affect on play.) 


I say I am surprised by the above because I would have thought that getting the strategic bones right would require less training and skill than getting the aesthetics right. But maybe I am missing something.


Bob


 


 

[Mike_Young]

I see what you are saying but I don't think most golfers ever get to that stage of thinking in the game.

 I think often the surfaces have more to do with subtle strategies than just the aesthetic side.  For instance, a shaggy, unknown lie bunker on the left side of a green vs. a well maintained one will keep a very good player from risking a short side 175 shot to a left pin IMHO as will a sublte 4% right sloping green surface that will not allow a good recovery. 

You talk about strategy that would mess with a good player...let's build a wide open, closely cut/no rough golf course with no bunkers.  JMO

[Bill_McBride]

I see what you are saying but I don't think most golfers ever get to that stage of thinking in the game.

 I think often the surfaces have more to do with subtle strategies than just the aesthetic side.  For instance, a shaggy, unknown lie bunker on the left side of a green vs. a well maintained one will keep a very good player from risking a short side 175 shot to a left pin IMHO as will a sublte 4% right sloping green surface that will not allow a good recovery. 

You talk about strategy that would mess with a good player...let's build a wide open, closely cut/no rough golf course with no bunkers.  JMO

Or maybe just 22 bunkers.   

[Bill_McBride]

When I was reading Peter's excellent opening post, I was able to visualize the enhanced hole he plotted, and realized, although I've never been there, that hole is somewhere on the Royal Melbourne course.  Thank you!

[Paul Gray]

When aesthetics are far more than just aesthetics. A very good point. You're right that it's obvious but it's equally true that it's very easy to overlook. I believe it was MacKenzie who suggested making a hole look more difficult than it actually is. Case in point. 

[BCrosby]

The "I make it look harder than it is" meme has been used by a number of architects over the years. Fazio most recently. I give it about as much weight as the "this property was destined to be a great golf course" meme. I suspect that even back in the day it was mostly meant as advertising copy.

As Peter suggests (I think), really good architects have a knack for merging the strategic and the aesthetic. They make it hard to separate the two.  But if forced to choose one or the other, I will always opt for a strategic course, however artificial or ugly. In large part because there are fewer of them. (Which, as noted above, is a puzzle.)

Bob 

[Mike_Young]

I think a hole made to look easier than it really is becomes much more difficult.

Also, when aesthetics are discussed with golf courses, it seems to always involve bunkers.  Do we have to have the contrast of sand and grass to create aesthetically pleasing holes?  I think it has been a crutch for a long time now...

[Jason Topp]

Playing at Reynold's Plantation last weekend, I had similar thoughts.  Many of the holes are very sound strategically with plenty of width and interesting greens.  Playing through tunnels of trees (even though they were plenty wide tunnels) takes away the memorability that I associate with great golf courses even though as pure tests of golf they are very sound.