Is there a place in course design for blandness??

[Thomas Dai]

On the thread entitled "Is there any length that can't make for a great hole?" -  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62692.0.html - I enquired that "Ignoring length, are there many great holes that don't have great greens/greensites?" A reply mentioned that " There are, occasionally, great holes that have plain greens, but 80-90% of great holes have great greens and/or green sites".

I also read on another thread that "the tee shot is merely the prelude to the remainder of the hole".

These comments have me wondering whether or not holes, whole courses even, often have too many features, too many hazards, just far too much going on?

Is there a place for blandness in course design.......and if so where on the course would it best be used?


Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas:


It's a good question, and a tough one to answer.


Anyone who's building a new course nowadays wants it to be special, and usually they equate special with spectacular.  They remember that Pine Valley sells a set of postcards of each and every one of its 18 holes; they tend to forget that St. Andrews is one of the great courses in the world even with a few "bland" holes.  [Or, they remember that some dummies dismiss The Old Course, because it has a few bland holes.]


I have never had a client ask me to build a bland hole deliberately ... overall, my clients have suggested adding more than 100 bunkers, and only twice has it been suggested I remove one.  Nevertheless, most great courses have a sense of flow to them instead of one long, exhausting crescendo, and it's up to the architect [sometimes fighting off his client] to hold back from going too far.


The two courses I can think of where the clients themselves insisted on some gentler holes in order to make the rest stand out are Shadow Creek and Kingsbarns.  Mr. Wynn, in particular, understood the importance of showmanship and sometimes that means having a quiet stretch along the way.

However, in all the examples I'm citing, the client has set out to build a great course, and they don't want to hear that their architect is holding anything back.  The vast majority of courses would be better off with simpler, more elegant designs, but those courses don't win the awards that both developer and architect want to win.  I speak from personal experience:  two of my better designs,  St. Andrews Beach and Tumble Creek, don't get as much press as others because they're more subdued.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thomas -
though I know there really is no point in following up on Tom D's very good/comprehensive post, I have often wondered whether it is "the critic's mind" and not "the golfer's mind" that identifies and names so-called bland or breather holes.

I think that if a course is really working, and an architect has designed it well, a golfer will get to the next golf hole (say, a short four with a gentle dogleg and not many hazards and an uncomplicated back-to-front sloping green) and simply play it, happy perhaps for a chance at a birdie and, consciously or not, appreciating the change of pace/intensity. 

It is only later, for a thread on gca.com or an article in a magazine or as a rater thinks about filling in his rater's card, that the critic takes over and feels compelled to name it a bland/breather hole, and then analyze how it works or doesn't. 

In other words, I think golf holes are/should be designed "for the moment", i.e. for how they actually play during a full round of golf and as part of the whole -- in short, designed for the golfer and not the critic. (I have a feeling that, in the olden days, that's how the vast majority of golf holes and courses were designed.)

But as the costs and the pressure for immediate success and the importance of ratings/magazines re the building of a new golf course have increased over the years, so has the tendency for clients and architects to factor in the reality of the "critic's mind" just as much and maybe more so than the "golfer's mind".

Luckily, because we have several truly top-flight architects working today, the practical results of an otherwise philosophically-unsatisfying tendency have been largely excellent. 

Peter 

[Jud_T]

Didn't Ian Andrew post something eloquent in this regard?  It seems to me that the best courses take one on a journey, have a story that unfolds over the course of a round, etc.  Even a good Speed-Metal show has a sense of dynamics and ebb and flow.  An archie or client who wants every hole to go to 11 is a sign of insecurity...Of course there's a big difference between subtle and boring...

[Ally Mcintosh]

DT,

This is one of the top few questions I mull over time and time again.

Because in truth all the great modern architects tend to put far more features in to their golf courses than their golden age ancestors did (or at least the British version anyway, the American Golden Age was far more flash).

They do this because they are so skilled that they can with ease.

And because the modern game / critics demand it.

Which courses by our top architects are the "blandest"? And why? Does that make them any less good? Is it primarily a function of site?

[Tim_Weiman]

Thomas,


I want to echo a point Tom Doak made in his post. For all the attention Barnbougle Dunes and Cape Kidnappers get, my reaction was that St Andrews Beach was by far the best of the three. IMO, SAB simply has more shots I would enjoy playing over and over again and though the setting is very pleasant, it doesn't have the dramatic scenery of CK or the ideal links land of BD.


Go it bland if you like, but give me St Andrews Beach, my favorite of all Tom's work.

[Marty Bonnar]

This is where I really like Jud's musical analogy. I'm not sure I'm going for the speed metal angle though!
I like to think the design of a golf course might in fact be quite analogous to the structure of a symphony or perhaps an opera.
I like the idea of contrasts. Fast/slow, loud/soft, melodic/clashing, instrumental/vocal.
In golf course terms, this might equate to hard/easy, hilly/flat, wide/narrow, BLAND/EXCITING.
Variety being the proverbial spice of life, bring me the smorgasbord of an Indian buffet. See what I did there? Clever, eh?

F.

[jeffwarne]

Some very informative responses.


Sometimes a "bland" hole is fun in that you merely focus on positively executing the shot without fear or pressure of repercussions for wayward shots-and where execution is its own reward-perhaps a longer drive, or one to a better angle, or just one ripped "down the middle" -rather than being hammered over the head with a potential immediate penalty, leading to constrained, joyless play.


I've always enjoyed a short par 4 with minimal trouble where the only obstacle was one's ability to hit a ball that far-which is a skill in itself, as is the ability to hit it accurately enough to hit the green-or utilizing short game skill to make 3 another way.
a very long par 3 can accomplish the same thing for many.


Many would call such holes bland, but a 3 is never bland and I tire of overthought  "rsik reward" (usually modern) short par 4's where the smartest play is nearly always a 5 or 6 iron off the tee, followed by a ridiculously confounding green. (not that there's anything wrong with that )


as stated before such holes can set the stage or balance a course with other spectacular/demanding/imaginative shots and holes.

[Sean_A]

ATB

I am not sure bland is a good descriptor and I am damn sure few archies would deliberately build bland. At least for me bland is not the absence of the excitement, but actually the opposite...boring, tasteless, wishy washy.  I can take subtle, restrained and discreet all the day long, but not bland. So, my answer is there is no place for bland.


Ciao

[Michael Graham]

There's a good scene in High Fidelity (and possibly the book?) whereby John Cusack's character is attempting to make the perfect mixed tape for his girlfriend and break the fourth well to talk to the audience about subtle art of the compilation tape.


Same with the routing of a golf course, you can't have 18 holes of wonder. You need to mix things up, or as Cusack's character puts it "You gotta kick off with a killer, to hold the attention. Then you have to take it up a notch, but not blow your wad,so maybe cool it off a notch."


As has already been said, there is, however, a big difference between subtle and bland.

[Mark Pearce]

Subtle?  Yes.  Solid/  Very definitely.  Unremarkable? I thinks so.  Bland?  No.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I wrote an article on this subject a few years ago that was published in the Australian Golf Architecture journal, inspired by Tom Simpson's comments about the necessity of creating one or two "bad holes" per course. I still think a "bad hole" - or at least one that's perceived to be "bland" - can be cool. This thought inspired my 350-yard seventh at the Derrick Club, in Edmonton.

The seventh there is a comparatively "bland" looking, relatively straight hole with its green offset slightly left when looking down the fairway from the tees. The fairway's kinda rumpled, but there's no elevation change between the tees and green to speak of. The hole has no bunkers, but the green is set next to a pond, left (that was existing). The first two-thirds of the putting surface is subtlety tilted toward the water. The green is triangular, with a flatter but narrower section at the back that accommodates a few pins. Even though it looks "bland", there are things to consider at the Derrick's seventh: Mostly, when holes are cut on that front two-thirds of the green, it's best played with draw off the tee and a cut into the right-to-left slope of the green (to avoid pitching down that slope, with water behind the pin, from the right side). But that's hard to see because of the lack of features .. the perceived "blandness".

[jeffwarne]

One man's bland is another man's subtle.

[Sean_A]

I wrote an article on this subject a few years ago that was published in the Australian Golf Architecture journal, inspired by Tom Simpson's comments about the necessity of creating one or two "bad holes" per course. I still think a "bad hole" - or at least one that's perceived to be "bland" - can be cool. This thought inspired my 350-yard seventh at the Derrick Club, in Edmonton.

The seventh there is a comparatively "bland" looking, relatively straight hole with its green offset slightly left when looking down the fairway from the tees. The fairway's kinda rumpled, but there's no elevation change between the tees and green to speak of. The hole has no bunkers, but the green is set next to a pond, left (that was existing). The first two-thirds of the putting surface is subtlety tilted toward the water. The green is triangular, with a flatter but narrower section at the back that accommodates a few pins. Even though it looks "bland", there are things to consider at the Derrick's seventh: Mostly, when holes are cut on that front two-thirds of the green, it's best played with draw off the tee and a cut into the right-to-left slope of the green (to avoid pitching down that slope, with water behind the pin, from the right side). But that's hard to see because of the lack of features .. the perceived "blandness".

So....you are really saying the hole is subtle and that folks who see it as bland don't really see it at all...no? Its hard for me to fathom that people actually support so called bland architecture...but it takes all kinds 


Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I wrote an article on this subject a few years ago that was published in the Australian Golf Architecture journal, inspired by Tom Simpson's comments about the necessity of creating one or two "bad holes" per course. I still think a "bad hole" - or at least one that's perceived to be "bland" - can be cool. This thought inspired my 350-yard seventh at the Derrick Club, in Edmonton.

The seventh there is a comparatively "bland" looking, relatively straight hole with its green offset slightly left when looking down the fairway from the tees. The fairway's kinda rumpled, but there's no elevation change between the tees and green to speak of. The hole has no bunkers, but the green is set next to a pond, left (that was existing). The first two-thirds of the putting surface is subtlety tilted toward the water. The green is triangular, with a flatter but narrower section at the back that accommodates a few pins. Even though it looks "bland", there are things to consider at the Derrick's seventh: Mostly, when holes are cut on that front two-thirds of the green, it's best played with draw off the tee and a cut into the right-to-left slope of the green (to avoid pitching down that slope, with water behind the pin, from the right side). But that's hard to see because of the lack of features .. the perceived "blandness".

So....you are really saying the hole is subtle and that folks who see it as bland don't really see it at all...no? Its hard for me to fathom that people actually support so called bland architecture...but it takes all kinds 


Ciao

That's what it sounds like to me, too.  Just as a great wine may well not be as in your face as an ultimately less satisfying fruit bomb, so a great golf hole does not need to be as dramatic as some spectacular holes, which may in the end be far less satisfying to play.

[Thomas Dai]

Fascinating responses. The balance between over-the-top and bland and where does variety and subtlety fit in.


It might not come as a surprise that TOC was the course in the back of my mind when composing the enquiry, well not just TOC but also other generally open-wide from the tee courses with interesting and challenging greens at the end so Jeff's comment about the 7th hole at Derrick GC in Canada required some websearching.


It would be curious to stand invisibly on the tee of a say a two shot par-4 where a tricky, awkward, nasty, evil, challenging green ultimately awaits but where the fairway is massively wide, dead flat, no rough, no mower lines, no trees, no bunkers, no ponds no streams and listen to what the players make of it. The tee-shot being just the prelude to what lies ahead? Lulling playings into a false sense of security, ambushing them if you like. It would be interesting to invisibly listen to their thoughts when walking off the green as well.


That's a nice comment about Steve Winn, showmanship and sometimes having a quiet stretch along the way. A hole, especially if there is a desire for the dreaded 'signature hole' (or a series of holes like the 'Bear Trap' or the 'Snake Pit' etc) is just an element, the overall balance of the routing something entirely different. Are peaks possible without troughs?


Many thanks for all your thoughts. Keep them coming.


At

[Jeff_Brauer]

In many ways, its all relative. Even on the most spectacular built up course, if every hole is visually or otherwise spectacular, don't all become somewhat bland by virtue of being nearly equally spectacular?  There is certainly sensation overload on several signature courses, and a bland hole would perhaps help that, as well.

It has been touched on, in terms of ebb and flow, but yes, a few holes may need to be bland to make others stand out.  Hopefully those are holes that some natural slope means you don't need to use a lot of hazards, and thus, it seems bland, but can play hard, or at least tricky, interesting, etc.

I don't see the trend toward visual spectacles reducing.  Any architect who gets a chance to build a new course will at least be tempted to make it a masterpiece (as opposed to when you might have 3-5 new courses a year) In bigger terms, if my generation was the TV generation and appreciated visuals, so does the younger generation, but add in the movement and constant excitement of the video games they played as kids, and something tells me, the next generations may subconsciously need non stop action to really enjoy golf.......

[Sean_A]

Jeff


I am waiting for the literature where an archie describes his work as bland 


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

How about "understated elegance?" Its the golf architecture equivalent to putting "nice personality" in an online dating profile....... 

[Peter Pallotta]

A long time ago the word "homely" (the way the Brits used it) would've been appropriate: "Simple and unpretentious; cosy and comfortable, as in one’s own home".

Of course, there's not much chance of architects or marketers using that word either. Once a word disappears from common use, that which it used to represent seems to go with it.

I like homely courses. They are relaxing; they don't demand that you praise and discuss them incessantly, and so it's more about you than about them.

 
 

[Thomas Dai]

When taking visuals into general consideration do we reckon that seaside courses, which tend to have strong natural visuals and be pretty photogenic, require less architect created features than inlanders, which are maybe somewhat less visually attractive/photogenic and thus need more sand, water, colourful trees, curly mowing lines to help them along? Just wondering out loud.
Atb

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff B.,


What is a "masterpiece"? Tom Simpson's might include a bland hole or two .. 

[Ian Andrew]

Jud,

was this the piece you were referring to?

The 11th at Highland Golf Links in Nova Scotia is intended as a breather hole. The first 10 holes at Highland run up and down the landscape like an out of control roller coaster slicing wildly through rolling wooded terrain. The 11th completely contrasts , built on the flat valley bottom almost like the high flat section on the roller coaster ride that sets you up for the next big drop.

 The hole was designed as medium length par four – bunkered only for alignment – its fairway the widest on the course with an unusually flat and wide-open green. So how could this hole have architectural merit if it was so easy and inviting? The key is what the hole offers the player. The 11th is a chance to catch your breath, hopefully make a par, and prepare for the next dizzying run of holes over Highland's rumpled terrain. More importantly it offers the best view of the surrounding mountains on the course. Thompson let the player relax and enjoy the views of this magnificent hidden valley, giving them time to savour this special place.

Roller coaster designers know they must space their thrills with breaks to maximize the enjoyment of the ride. Architects from the golden era used the breather hole between dramatic sections to relax players before taking them through a second difficult or dramatic section. A well-designed breather hole also builds anticipation for the next section. Breather holes represent another design technique that modern architecture has overlooked, to the detriment of the game.


Subtle takes enormous self confidence ... for four decades this puts you in complete contrast with what's popular

[Tom_Doak]

Subtle takes enormous self confidence ... for four decades this puts you in complete contrast with what's popular

Yes, but it is also possible to place a subtle design in a dramatic setting.  The only problem is that people are even more likely to miss what you were doing. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff B.,


What is a "masterpiece"? Tom Simpson's might include a bland hole or two .. 

I guess each archie would decide for him/herself what their masterpiece would be, but I was assuming most would tend to over design with the current limited opportunities, whereas more work would probably lead to more experimentation, but its all just a guess.  If I get an opportunity to design a masterpiece here in the next year or so, I will keep you posted.......