[John Kirk]

I've been busy working on other things, but now am taking a break to make 4-6 opening posts about golf architecture.  Hopefully one or more of these will be of interest.

I'm currently reading a book called "This Is Your Brain On Music", by Daniel Levitin, a psychologist and neuroscientist at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec.  My studies have diverted almost completely to musicology and music collecting, but I am finding good information that can be translated to our love of golf architecture.  The book reports many aspects of the brain's reaction and development to music.  Here are a few excerpts of Levitin's book describing the existence of categorical prototypes:

"(Eleanor) Rosch's third insight was that certain stimuli hold a privileged position in our perceptual system or our conceptual system, and that these become prototypes for a category: Categories are formed around these prototypes.  In the case of our perceptual system, categories like "red" and "blue" are a consequence of our retinal physiology; certain shades of red are universally going to be regarded as more vivid, more central, than others because a specific wavelength of visible light will cause the "red" receptors in our retina to fire maximally.  We form categories around these central, or focal colors.  Rosch tested this idea on a tribe of New Guinea people, the Dani, who have only two words in their language for colors, <i>mili</i> and <i>mola</i>, which essentially correspond to light and dark...

"Rosch showed her Dani subjects chips colored with different shades of red and asked them to pick out the best example of this color.  They overwhelming selected the same "red" that Americans do, and they were better at remembering it.  And they did this for other colors that they couldn't name, like greens and blues.  This led Rosch to conclude that (a) categories are formed around prototypes; (b) these prototypes can have a biological or physiological foundation; (c) category membership can be thought of as a question of degree, with some tokens being "better" exemplars than others; (d) new items are judged in relation to the prototypes, forming gradients of category membership, and the final blow for Aristotelian theory, (e) there don't need to be any attributes which all category members have in common, and boundaries don't have to be definite."

(Aristotelian believed in discrete categories, either a penguin is a bird, or it is not.)

"Aretha Franklin's version of "Respect" differs from that written and performed by Otis Redding in interesting ways — but we still consider it the same song.  What does this say about prototypes and the nature of categories?  Can we say that the musical variations share a family resemblance?  Are each of these versions of a song variations on an ideal prototype?"

One more...

"Posner and Keele addressed the general question of categories and prototypes using their dot stimuli.  Subjects were shown pieces of paper with version after version of these squares with dots in them, each of them different, but they were never shown the prototypes from which the variations were made...  A week later they asked the subjects to look at more pieces of paper, some old and some new, and to indicate which ones they had seen before... Now, unbeknownst to the subjects, Posner and Keele had slipped in the prototypes from which all the figures had been derived.  Astonishingly, the subjects often identified the two previously unseen prototypes as figures they had seen before.  This provided the foundation for an argument that prototypes are stored in memory..."

Levitin then translates the concept of prototypes to music, offering examples of songs that could be considered universal prototypes for that style of music.  My examples for musical prototypes might include:

"Potato Head Blues", Louis Armstrong and His Hot Seven
"Take Five", The Dave Brubeck Quartet
"One O'Clock Jump", Count Basie & His Orchestra
"Blue Suede Shoes", Carl Perkins
"(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", The Rolling Stones
"Blue Moon Of Kentucky", Bill Monroe & His Bluegrass Boys

I recently had the pleasure of playing a preview round at Stoatin Brae, the new golf course at the Gull Lake View Resort near Battle Creek, Michigan.  Upon arriving at the uphill, par 3 7th hole, a handsome 190-200 yarder with a steep falloff left, I said to my architect host, "This is a Redan, isn't it?".  Given that left was a lost ball, I'm unsure it occurred to him that the hole, with its imposing "fortification" bunkers well short of the green, shared some traits with the original North Berwick design.  Inspired by my revelation, I played a crisp roundhouse hook that bounded onto the green from the right side.  Then I three-putted for an tap-in bogey.

If we translate this concept of prototypes to golf, I believe we will identify a different complement of designs than what we consider templates.  The Redan is a timeless concept, and perhaps the Short could be considered a prototype, with many variations, but I would have trouble granting the specialized Biarritz the same status.  Perhaps that is why this template is used less frequently.  However, holes not considered among the Macdonald/Raynor templates would be well considered as worthwhile prototypes.  I will return to one of my favorite examples, the 13th hole at Stanford University Golf Course.  A flat 430 yarder, the 13th features five bunkers and a green orientation to dictate strategy.  The overhead photo is self explanatory:



The only thing missing is widening the fairway by 25 yards on the left to reward the long ball striker.

The concept of prototypes is more compelling for those golfers who played the game in childhood.  Young people form lasting memories, before unnecessary neurological connections are trimmed away in adolescence and early adulthood.  Although I dabbled with drawing golf holes around age 10, I didn't start playing golf regularly until my mid-20s.  People who played golf as children will have specific prototypes that differ based on where they played.  For instance, My Oregon friends "see" narrow tree-lined holes as normal and desirable.

I hope readers see the distinction between template and prototype golf holes, and find value in further discussion.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

A valuable post, John -- an interesting lens through which to understand how we (subjectively) experience the golf courses that we play/want to play. I hope many others will chime in. My initial reaction, merely to start things off:

I'm struck by (but can't explain) how appealing to me a certain kind of gca prototype is, one that manifests itself in courses such as Formby, Walton Heath, Garden City, Mid Pines, and The Loop; five different courses from different times and places, by five different architects (Park, Fowler, Emmett-Travis, Ross, and Doak), and yet to me seemingly from the same family, the same genre.

Peter   

PS - to use this language, maybe one main problem with courses that don't work is that of 'mixed prototypes' or (using the phrase wrongly, I'm sure) 'category mistakes'.  Maybe when I/we complain that a golf course has little 'sense of place' what we're actually seeing is a mixed or misplaced prototype.

PS - a very fine list of 5 musical prototypes; and to my ear, they share the same Foundation (the musical equivalent to the Old Course), i.e. the Blues.  Surface and slight technical/harmonic differences aside, Armstrong played it, Basie and Goodman/swing played it, Parker/bop played it, the rockabilly/country/R&B types like Perkins and Monroe played it (with nods in their song titles), and of course the Stones/rock played it.   

[Ian Andrew]

The issue I have with your thought is complexity.


Much of this was a reaction to an individual or simple stimulation.


I don't think a golf hole is a simple enough to work the same way.
It touches far more senses than music.
It also relies on a physical experience
What it does share with music is an emotional reaction.


My love of a Redan came from watching a ball react and run in a way that I didn't fully anticipate.
It stirred an emotional attachment.


I also know after seeing a lot of golf, the moments where I get charged up is when I see something out of the box.
The 6th at The Creek Club, the 13th at Fraserburgh, 13th at Highlands Links ... these are the high points in my golfing life.


Which makes me wonder if surprise is far more valuable than familiarity ...

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - if you're willing, I think it valuable to "unpack" your post.

You used the phrase "charged up". In a thread I started the other day I used "exhilaration". Maybe we're describing the same feeling; maybe not. But in any event, the question I'd like to ask you is: Why?

Why are the 6th at Creek Club or the 13th at Fraserburgh surprising?
To use John's language: are they outside the prototype? And if so, in what way and to what degree?  Do they work because they are outside of the box or in spite of it?  And how far outside the prototype are they actually/fundamentally as opposed to superficially?

And Why is the experience of surprise now so valuable/important to you?
Is it the charge of it, simply because of the surprise itself; and/or is it in terms of opening yourself up to new possibilities in design that you had not considered before -- i.e. to a broadening of the gca prototypes you're most familiar with?  Or perhaps is it a function of having seen everything there is too see, such that the fun of playing a new course has lessened, and so the charge/exhilaration of surprise is more necessary?

Thanks
Peter

 

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Like Ian, some years ago I started to place more importance on holes which a label cannot be applied, but which are exhilarating.  This followed on from the same idea that on each course I like to see a few greens which are something different...stand out in some way.  I think, as you explained, that I am seeking a thrill, a feeling which is perhaps a level or two above a well executed "prototype" or template hole.  However, the rub is how much is enough and what is too much (we can call this the Brauer Conundrum)?  I spose the answer to that question is down to personal taste. For me, very few courses take it too far...Painswick is an example. That said, I would rather play Painswick than 75% of courses because at least I do get a rush at Painswick and that is far better than a marsh mellow Doak 5 or courses which take other concepts (water, length, championship difficulty etc) too far...for me anyway. 


Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

Opening up the examples ...

Creek Club 6th is all about combining elements. Some might be called prototypical. For example the hole requires you to work the ball both ways for best results. The green falls with the land. There may be no better example of borrowed scenery in golf. I consider the tee shot a fine example of compression and release the way you come to the top of the hill and say oh my! But it’s the audacity to go one step further and add a punchbowl formation around that green. Nobody else could have made this.

Fraserburgh 13th is about play. The fairway undulations, the two massive rolls at the front of the green, the amazing flare in the back of the green surface. It allows any play, but the running ground approach is so much fun.  I found a series of routes to to multiple places by “trying”. It’s an explorer’s paradise. These holes make a massive emotional connection to me. I look to find, identify and share the same experiences.

Highlands Links 13th. The green is set in an unlikely place. It’s in the lowest point which is not a complete surprise. But it’s also set behind a knoll so large that you can’t see the green, unless out by the tree lines and then that’s just a corner. Then Stan lengthened the hole to a point where players had to bounce the ball off that knoll to find the surface. It’s atypical in its choices, but super fun to play.

[Ian Andrew]

And Why is the experience of surprise now so valuable/important to you?

Peter,

I've made a lot of effort to see as much great architecture as I can. Part of it is the love of the art form, part of it is preparation for what I do. There is a price. At a certain point, you've seen too many prototypical examples. Since many are created and I really dislike over-shaped landscapes. I often turn off to those holes and courses and begin to ignore the good prototypes found within (think Pete Dye). There are quite a few famous courses (Oak Hill, Balusrol) that I don't admire. Much of that falls to prototypes and predictable ideas.

The best work tends to feel much more spontaneous or reactionary

So while prototypes are common in design, its not where greatness lies for me.

[John Kirk]

And Why is the experience of surprise now so valuable/important to you?

So while prototypes are common in design, its not where greatness lies for me.

Thanks for the responses.  The concept of golf hole prototypes, where certain designs are "natural" or "native" to one's thinking about golf, is a stretch.  Prototypes would be different than the well known templates.

I don't disagree that greatness lies in unique hole designs.  I didn't suggest that.  But it may be your depth of experience and love for golf that gives you that appreciation of complexity, similar to a professional musician or devoted music listener with a finely tuned ear for details.

Remember that a musician has a physical relationship with the music, and people who move and dance to recorded music, do too.  Historically speaking, the elimination of dance as a key component of music listening, is a recent phenomenon.

Another thing to consider: MP3 to high quality (Pono) music files are about 2-10 MB in size for a 3 minute song.  15 MB would allow a reasonable job describing all features, including elevation changes, of a golf hole.    I think it would be fair to say that the complexity of a song and a golf hole, in terms of the digital requirements to describe them, is within an order of (base 10) magnitude.  Maybe a golf hole is a few times more complex.

Categories can be created with few if any constraints.  It appears all of Ian's examples are "par 4s".

Taking the dot matrix test example in the opening post, one can imagine this experiment working for prototype golf holes.  Showing dot matrix diagrams one week, and then inserting prototypes the next week to see if the respondents have "seen" them.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - thank you.

John - not surprisingly, I don't think you should be so quick to characterize the concept of certain designs/prototypes  being natural to one's thinking/neurology as a stretch.

I know most here (me too, sometimes) poke fun at all the beard-pulling; but besides the fact that over and over again in such threads I've read folks like Ian and Gib and Sean and Tom and Jeff ground the theory in very practical experiences/insights, there is also this: there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

We all know of the spiritual and psychological systems/beliefs/metaphysics (from both East and West) that might help explain why certain prototypes (you focused on holes, I focused on courses) are experienced as native and natural to our thinking.  Even on a golf architecture discussion board, I think there's value in not dismissing those systems out of hand, and/or of not excluding a priori the possibilities and explanations inherent in them

Peter   
   

[Peter Pallotta]

Here's an example, John -

Have you ever played a sea-side links prototype, with the scale that befits the immensity of the neighbouring ocean, the width that befits the often windy conditions, and the rumpled/contoured fairways that befit the sandy soil -- except that it was 1500 miles away from the nearest ocean, there was nary a breath of wind, and it was built on an old landfill dump? 

I have. It was an expensive 80s-90s country club for a day that debuted relatively high in the rating lists here but has been sinking like a stone ever since...perhaps because it took the raters some time to realize that it was a misplaced prototype and category mistake, and had no sense of place.

Maybe that could be a good definition of the Doak "0" - a course that should never have been built in the way it was built for the place it was built - a misplaced prototype.

Peter   

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, John, for a perfectly Kirkish post!  I'm pretty sure that we talked about the 13th at Stanford many moons ago on this platform, and i still agree that it is a better hole than its predecessor, which has no real strategic interest other than the two huge oaks in the middle of the fairway.  The only birdie I ever saw on the 12th was made by a frat brother who hardly played the game but sliced a drier, topped a 5 wood and then holes a 5 iron from 150 yards or so.


As for the music part, I've recently been comparing Buddy Holly's and Keith Richards' takes on "Learning the Game."  Best ever song only partly finished because the writer died in a plane crash........


Rich

[Rich Goodale]

,,,for those of you who can't be arsed to search through you tube.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq_MBXE7pPk[/size]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PyNZJ84LY[/size]

[Rich Goodale]

Buddy's version


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSdJxwSOKOk

[John Kirk]

Although unrelated to our inner golf hole prototype, Buddy Holly's "Learning The Game" has a coveted spot in my iPod collection.  I haven't heard the Keith Richards version.

Peter, thanks for the kind responses.  As a GCA "theorist", the open frontier for new ideas is running dry.

[Garland Bayley]

John,


Are your prototypes not the same as what building architects refer to as architectural patterns? There has been some discussion of golf architectural patterns here in the past.

[John Kirk]

Hi Garland,

I don't know.  I must have missed the conversations about golf architectural patterns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_pattern

[JC Urbina]

John,


Your point about    As a GCA "theorist", the open frontier for new ideas is running dry.




I don't believe to be true.  The willingness to accept something different in the way the game is played and the way it could be designed and built is the drawback.   As golf purists if we weren't so judgemental about new ideas the art of the game could certainly change.  From geometric greens and bunkers in the early 1900's to free flowing bunkers and greens in the roaring twenties we have seen change happen over time.  The 50's brought a game and a style of architecture that was much simpler in its presentation.


the 70's 80's and 90's  brought the housing and golf combo.  The late 90's through 2015 and hopefully beyond brought the era of destination golf, traveling longer distances to seek out truly wonderfiul courses being built on one of a kind landscapes to enhance the experience.


The next generation of golf courses maybe thought of in terms of recycling. 

[John Kirk]

John,

I don't believe to be true.  The willingness to accept something different in the way the game is played and the way it could be designed and built is the drawback.   As golf purists if we weren't so judgemental about new ideas the art of the game could certainly change.  From geometric greens and bunkers in the early 1900's to free flowing bunkers and greens in the roaring twenties we have seen change happen over time.  The 50's brought a game and a style of architecture that was much simpler in its presentation.

the 70's 80's and 90's brought the housing and golf combo.  The late 90's through 2015 and hopefully beyond brought the era of destination golf, traveling longer distances to seek out truly wonderful courses being built on one of a kind landscapes to enhance the experience.

The next generation of golf courses may be thought of in terms of recycling.

JC,

I might be more open minded about this if I felt golf was not fully explored and understood.  In terms of playing the game, the two considerations are the behavior of a ball being struck with the club, and the size and shape of the playing field.  Although there are some minor differences between good modern courses and good Golden Age courses, a good argument can be made that ambitious architects tried different alternatives for several decades, before returning to the tried and true practices perfected by the 1920s.

Mostly, I was referring to my experience of spending 12 years discussing architecture on this website.  Profound revelations are far and few between in your 13th year.  13 years of taking GCA 301 as a class!

American golf has an economic problem.  Wages have stagnated for the majority of Americans, while the price of essential goods and services, like housing, food, education and medicine, have increased significantly.  The wealthiest 5-10% still have plenty of discretionary income, but among the rest of the population, only those devoted to golf as a primary passion will continue to play the game.  Everybody has their crystal ball for the future of golf; mine says the great golf clubs continue to be supported by the upper class, while local courses with a low cost structure and devoted membership thrive.  Everything else fails.  Even in the medium term (10-15 years), great destination clubs and courses are vulnerable.

Perhaps "recycling" is a good pursuit for the modern architect, reworking an inefficient course design into something better.  Trying to recoup the costs of a new design look increasingly unreasonable, especially when so many existing golf courses could be improved.  If there's an open frontier in golf design, it's figuring out how to make a golf course interesting, with very low yearly maintenance costs, and creating a simple, warm clubhouse environment.

[Sean_A]

JC

I am not as pessimistic as John, but on the other hand I don't see much if anything new coming from architects. Some designs will likely push around the edges (reversable courses, less holes, less maintenance, rehashing odd ground features...old ideas in a new box etc), but nothing new in terms of actual hole designs/concepts. I think the book has been written on this subject and the only new ideas will be different takes on old ideas based on terrain. That doesn't mean a lot of cool stuff can't be built or old ideas rehashed to good effect, but it will take some gumption on the part of archies...archies who aren't afraid to fail from a critical PoV.


Ciao 

[Peter Pallotta]

Random thoughts:

1. We may be asking more of golf and its fields of play than they can provide, or were ever intended to provide.   
2. The private or destination course experience is a combination Rorschach test, polished mirror, and instrument of personal narrative-making:  if/when we no longer like what we see there or what is being reflected back at us, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves will inevitably grow stale, and thus so too will the experience.
3. The "average English course" has for a century been serving admirably, sustainably, and affordably the purposes for which it was built, and providing precisely what golf and its fields of play were intended to provide. It's telling that no one is building the average English course anymore, and that no one would even consider it; and sadly, if anyone did design and build such a course, we here at gca.com would be the first to ignore and/or pillory it.
4. Creative types tend to downplay (even to themselves) some aspects of their talent/approach while at the same time overstating others, and for golf course architects the latter often seems to involve exaggerating the differences between their work and someone else's.  For me, the truth is that any two architects/any two courses are vastly more similar to each other than they are different -- and the fundamental design principles they share and have in common were established at least a century ago, and are unlikely to change.       

[Jason Topp]

I think I am following you John.  I enjoy blues music.  You pretty much know how the song is going to flow but, if done well the music does not get old.  Shakespeare followed a pretty specific formula.  HIs plays have stood the test of time.

Certain holes feel familiar when you step on the tee, sometimes in a positive way but often in a negative way.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()