[BCrosby]

Andrew -


I think Doak's architectural bet at The Loop is that golfers will get past the need for "eye catching aesthetics" and see the courses for what they purport to be - as presenting interesting golfing challenges that are pretty unique in the US.


Doak will lose that bet with some golfers. But I think in the long run The Loop will be appreciated as great fun and strikingly different kinds of course(s) that will draw a lot of people to northern Michigan.


Bob   

[Jeff_Brauer]

A couple of random thoughts before boarding the plane for Bob Cupp's memorial.....

JN just had a press link (not sure where I found it) saying he thinks golfers first and foremost like an eye pleasing golf course.  So, he apparently hadn't given the stripped down thing a thought.  I have, and still believe those of us growing up in the TV generation, and now video games, are just more visual than when golf began.  I  would say you strip out aesthetics in the name of some esoteric design theory at your peril.

Not to mention, the world isn't stripping down and golf architecture can't in many ways because of it, a la, permits, views from residential, enviro sensitivity (which you would think would mean leave more untouched, but in so many cases, means grade more to control water flow, etc.

As to bunkering, most of us find we are stripping out "unnecessary" bunkers (and maybe always  have) because of budget.

As to definition, as I read architecture history, I see it as a constant upwards desire of players and architects.  There may be some other factors, like busier courses, surrounding housing, etc. that has accelerated the long standing trend.  Golfers want info, whether yardage books, lasers, distance markers, etc.  When that idea matured, definition in golf architecture followed. 

Its great that a few architects are going back to the all turf, two cut, less definition look.  It might be one of the last ways to fool a pro, or maybe not, given all their other aids, maybe indecision has gone out of style for good. At the very least, I would say the world is just complicated enough that it is a great variety to have different styles, a la no definition, but won't, and perhaps shouldn't be accepted as norm everywhere. 

[Tim_Weiman]

While Mike Y is being somewhat facetious, we do have to define what "core" architecture is before deciding whether to strip down to it.  As I read this, it seems like an obtuse method of (again) celebrating minimalism and defending it as the only true path (much like some religions tout themselves)

I am more in the TEPaul "Big World" theory and believe now (as always) we are best off letting every architect and owner explore their own vision of architecture and await the results before we give it an automatic "thumbs down" based on preconceptions of any kind, not playing the course.

Jeff,


Not sure I can agree with your suggestion that stripping down to "core architecture" is an obtuse method of celebrating minimalism. To me, it means identifying what really makes a golf hole interesting to play.


Let me give a not well known or discussed example. Sadly, it has been quite a while since I have been back to Dooks - one of the most joyous places in golf IMO. So, forgive me, I know changes have been made to certain  holes.


But, anyway, the old 17th hole was an essay in "core architecture" and what makes a hole interesting to play. At first glance this hole was defenseless: only about 300 yards, straight, from an elevated tee and no bunkers if I recall correctly.


Nothing to it, right?


Wrong!


Just short of the green - bleeding into the green - was a depression (I am guessing it was about a foot). Wow, this little hazard could easily cost a stroke or even two.


I found it amazing: such a little hazard could have such a big impact.


Now one might be tempted to say the hole was an example of "minimalism". Not me. The real essence of the hole was its "core architecture": a small, well placed hazard you wouldn't even see the first time you played the hole but it certainly made things quite interesting time and time again.

[Adam Clayman]

Ian, From the cheap seats,,, there have been several modern courses built with the values you espouse, only to have their playability dilluted by those with neither the ability to adapt, or, to be creative. The shot making nuances, to the slightest change in the agronomy,  firmness, and ground contours, requires too much time commitment.


 Thomas Kincaid seems analogous.

[Tom_Doak]

I didn't like The Loop.  The green complexes were awesome, the shot values were high, the resistance to scoring was surprisingly high, the conditioning (which should be virtually irrelevant for a brand new course) was also very good, and the design variety was simply incredible when you (unfairly) include all 36 holes.  I honestly thought the reversible idea was a marketing gimmick – if not a shrewd business decision – but it is very, very hard to see the “other” course’s holes when playing.  Which, in my opinion, makes it an unbelievable design achievement unmatched in golf course architecture.
However, I still would prefer to play Forest Dunes over either of The Loop courses – even though I recognize that as a single golf course it is an exceptional golf course design.  Frankly I think this is due to the “striped down to its core” nature of two courses.  Neither course scores (IMHO) very high on aesthetics, ambiance, or memorability which – as Mr. Doak has pointed out – was necessary in order to make a reversible design work.  As a member course(s) I would probably quickly fall in love with it but as a destination/resort course(s) I’m not sure it will get the love it most likely deserves.  And I can only attribute it to the relative lack of eye catching aesthetics that would make it more memorable.  Whether that’s good or bad I cannot say.

Andrew:


That's a very interesting review ... even more so than a lot of the feedback I am getting from friends and fellow designers who played in the Renaissance Cup.  Thanks for posting it.


One reason I have held the reversible concept under wraps for so long is that I knew it would confound how the raters rate, and thus it probably wasn't going to be attractive to clients who were interested in getting a top rating for their course [which is most of them!].  The very thing which makes the project the most interesting -- that the two courses are so different that people struggle to remember which is which -- makes it lose big points for "Memorability" and "Aesthetics." 


I believe we could have done more to make the course visually interesting, but we elected not to, partly because the concept is so difficult to pull off that we needed to keep the execution of it simple, at least at first.  I am glad it is close to my home, because I think it will benefit from tinkering around at the margins.  However, I think that a lot of visual elaboration would have come at the expense of some of its playing interest.  As is, it's one of the hardest tee-shot courses I've built, because of the lack of definition, the many angled fairways, and the difficult native rough awaiting those who take a bad line or double-cross their drive.  Extra fairway bunkers probably would have allowed players to be more comfortable with it.  We have a lot of thinning out to do in the roughs for playability's sake, which will likely add some visual interest, too, but without the pretty bunkers for which my crew are well-known.


Your review is interesting because it's such a mix of feelings, which prompts an honest question:  did you really not like it emotionally, as much as you admired parts of it, or is that an analytical response based on the definitions you are rating under?  You seem to chafe at being told to rate it as one course ("unfairly") instead of two.


One of my former associates -- a former mathematics major -- said she did not know how to rate the course, because what is 6 + 6 on the Doak scale?  She wasn't sure whether it should be 6, or 12, or somewhere in between.  I suppose the answer depends on the observer.


Interestingly, the most ardent admirers of the course so far are people I wouldn't have expected:  a club manager who thinks it's a home run as a business proposition, and one organization that is already considering the possibilities as a tournament site.  Feedback I didn't expect:  it will be hard to set up for television, because a camera tower behind the green for one direction is going to get in the way the next day!  That certainly wasn't on our radar when we started.

[Peter Pallotta]

I've never really understood these kind of threads. I think they present a falsely binary view of "aesthetics", as if some courses focus on/have it and some don't.  To me, it's all aesthetics, and all courses (each in the own way) present us with their particular brand of aesthetic value-system -- not least because we are physical beings who experience the world through our senses and not through immaterial philosophical constructs; Pavarotti can bring us joy because we have ears, and sunsets are lovely because we have eyes. If we assume that all golf courses worthy of the name provide at least a basic level of functionality and playability, then all we have left to discuss is the aesthetics: different kinds of aesthetic presentations, granted, but not different orders of it. Augusta National has as clear and distinct an aesthetic as Garden City. The arts & crafts movement that Paul mentioned, for example, certainly made manifest a striking and strikingly new (for the time) aesthetic, and this not despite but precisely because of its focus on functionality. So what exactly are folks talking about when they either praise a course for its aesthetics or complain that the aesthetics were lacking? If they are in fact talking about nothing more than mere "personal tastes" then I don't understand why we're discussing the topic at all; we might as well spend our time typing "I like blondes" or "I like brunettes" over and over again. But even if I were happy to simply talk about taste, I'd still be confused: can it be that a relatively short blip (20 years or so) of 1980's over-the-top circus-styled architecture has actually shaped our collective sense of aesthetics more than the other 150++ years of understated and low to the ground presentation?

Peter     

[Sean_A]

I've never really understood these kind of threads. I think they present a falsely binary view of "aesthetics", as if some courses focus on/have it and some don't.  To me, it's all aesthetics, and all courses (each in the own way) present us with their particular brand of aesthetic value-system -- not least because we are physical beings who experience the world through our senses and not through immaterial philosophical constructs; Pavarotti can bring us joy because we have ears, and sunsets are lovely because we have eyes. If we assume that all golf courses worthy of the name provide at least a basic level of functionality and playability, then all we have left to discuss is the aesthetics: different kinds of aesthetic presentations, granted, but not different orders of it. Augusta National has as clear and distinct an aesthetic as Garden City. The arts & crafts movement that Paul mentioned, for example, certainly made manifest a striking and strikingly new (for the time) aesthetic, and this not despite but precisely because of its focus on functionality. So what exactly are folks talking about when they either praise a course for its aesthetics or complain that the aesthetics were lacking? If they are in fact talking about nothing more than mere "personal tastes" then I don't understand why we're discussing the topic at all; we might as well spend our time typing "I like blondes" or "I like brunettes" over and over again. But even if I were happy to simply talk about taste, I'd still be confused: can it be that a relatively short blip (20 years or so) of 1980's over-the-top circus-styled architecture has actually shaped our collective sense of aesthetics more than the other 150++ years of understated and low to the ground presentation?

Peter     

Pietro


Not at all, only it is easier to tackle a wide as the world subject such as aesthetics a few pieces at a time.  I have become far more interested in these aspects of design over "shot value" or other esoteric golf chats.  I find it interesting that Doak was willing to possibly use a man-made sand feature to hide man-made grass lines when the sand may have very little impact on the playability aspect of the design.  That to me is not stripping back design, but I can't say its necessarily a negative impact on design...indeed Doak intends it to be a positive impact on design.     

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

I didn't like The Loop.  The green complexes were awesome, the shot values were high, the resistance to scoring was surprisingly high, the conditioning (which should be virtually irrelevant for a brand new course) was also very good, and the design variety was simply incredible when you (unfairly) include all 36 holes.  I honestly thought the reversible idea was a marketing gimmick – if not a shrewd business decision – but it is very, very hard to see the “other” course’s holes when playing.  Which, in my opinion, makes it an unbelievable design achievement unmatched in golf course architecture.
However, I still would prefer to play Forest Dunes over either of The Loop courses – even though I recognize that as a single golf course it is an exceptional golf course design.  Frankly I think this is due to the “striped down to its core” nature of two courses.  Neither course scores (IMHO) very high on aesthetics, ambiance, or memorability which – as Mr. Doak has pointed out – was necessary in order to make a reversible design work.  As a member course(s) I would probably quickly fall in love with it but as a destination/resort course(s) I’m not sure it will get the love it most likely deserves.  And I can only attribute it to the relative lack of eye catching aesthetics that would make it more memorable.  Whether that’s good or bad I cannot say.

Andrew,
What you didn't like is what I did like.   

[Mike_Young]

I've never really understood these kind of threads. I think they present a falsely binary view of "aesthetics", as if some courses focus on/have it and some don't.  To me, it's all aesthetics, and all courses (each in the own way) present us with their particular brand of aesthetic value-system -- not least because we are physical beings who experience the world through our senses and not through immaterial philosophical constructs; Pavarotti can bring us joy because we have ears, and sunsets are lovely because we have eyes. If we assume that all golf courses worthy of the name provide at least a basic level of functionality and playability, then all we have left to discuss is the aesthetics: different kinds of aesthetic presentations, granted, but not different orders of it. Augusta National has as clear and distinct an aesthetic as Garden City. The arts & crafts movement that Paul mentioned, for example, certainly made manifest a striking and strikingly new (for the time) aesthetic, and this not despite but precisely because of its focus on functionality. So what exactly are folks talking about when they either praise a course for its aesthetics or complain that the aesthetics were lacking? If they are in fact talking about nothing more than mere "personal tastes" then I don't understand why we're discussing the topic at all; we might as well spend our time typing "I like blondes" or "I like brunettes" over and over again. But even if I were happy to simply talk about taste, I'd still be confused: can it be that a relatively short blip (20 years or so) of 1980's over-the-top circus-styled architecture has actually shaped our collective sense of aesthetics more than the other 150++ years of understated and low to the ground presentation?

Peter     

Peter,
IMHO many people rating courses view color variation as the main aesthetic.  They should try viewing some of these places in black and white....

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, Mike - always good to get your perspectives on my rambling.

Sean - it's interesting how we 'learn' and change; I remember that for many years the only difference between your tastes and mine (based on your English course profiles) seemed to be that you saw the value in -- and even liked -- the chocolate drop mounds and raised false fronts/green side ridges that someone like Colt might use on flat sites, and I thought they were unnecessary and even ugly - a blight on the landscape. I've come to some extent to see the error of my ways, while you seem to be going in the other direction!

Mike - Fascinating. I have my blind spots no doubt (though, being blind spots I'm not aware of what they are!). But that seasoned/sophisticated golfers can chide architects for "eye candy" bunkers and artificial mounding and yet not recognize the eye candy that is color variation is a real surprise to me. Black and white would be a good idea; perhaps even better, as I once proposed on here, is that golf courses only be seen and walked in winter, when they are covered in a thin layer of snow. Nothing puts the focus so squarely on contours and the relationship between features as a snowfall that blots out the aesthetics!         

[Rich Goodale]

A week from now I will be visiting the eldest Goodale sprog who has been working full time in the computer game industry since April, focusing on User Interface.  She has absolutely no interest in golf, even though I pushed her in her pram over Royal Dornoch when she was 3 months old, but I think she would be interested in this thread which is effectively all about UI.  Keep up all the good thoughts on this thread, archies, and hopefully Caitlin can push me in a virtual pram through the intricacies of her passion next weekend.  If I learn anything, I'll let you know.

[Sean_A]

Sean, Mike - always good to get your perspectives on my rambling.

Sean - it's interesting how we 'learn' and change; I remember that for many years the only difference between your tastes and mine (based on your English course profiles) seemed to be that you saw the value in -- and even liked -- the chocolate drop mounds and raised false fronts/green side ridges that someone like Colt might use on flat sites, and I thought they were unnecessary and even ugly - a blight on the landscape. I've come to some extent to see the error of my ways, while you seem to be going in the other direction!

Pietro

Yes, I still like all the weird stuff, but I know that its a very small niche market and most modern archies wouldn't even dream about doing that sort of thing.  They have modern methods of creating features which when done right (though this is quite rare) looks wonderful.  As with many things in architecture, I think we can trace back attempts at providing a natural aesthetic to Colt etc.  Its interesting what has become of that natural style and how a handful of top modern archies are living large on it.  I wish these sitting comfortably with guaranteed legacies archies would push the boat out and give us some architecture which is far more blantantly in the golfers' face and decidely unnatural in appearance. 

I think Mike is right when he states colour variation is the main aesthetic.  The lack of colour variation is, I think, a big reason why some UK parkland courses are not thought of more highly.  Somehow, the Sacred 9 broke through that bias, but I do think a great many people still shake their heads in wonder at why it even gets a look into proclaimed greatness. 

Ciao 

[Thomas Dai]

When I think stripped down architecture the first place my mind goes is a man wandering around in nature with a club hitting a ball towards things his eye picks out. I start to think about when I used to grab a club and a ball and make up holes in the practice fields behind my dorm room at college. Hitting it through the goal posts towards a fence post beyond. Then back around around a tree to lacrosse net, etc. Friends joined, it became a game. Is that not the essence of golf?

Very nicely described. I reckon many of us have operated in this manner - a young Gary Player hitting shots through and over rugby posts. Seve on the beach with his hand-me-down 3-iron. I played golf like this on the dunes where Trump Aberdeen now resides in this kind of basic manner 30+ years ago.


I imagine visiting Mulranny prior to the recent Buda would have been an interesting eye opener for some. Carne, especially the Kilmore-9, may have been too. Ballyliffin Old and the likes of Gweedore etc as well.


One aspect of "strip down" to remember though is that you need something to compare it with.


Without the other side of the fence, which for discussion purposes I shall term the "flashy" approach, then there is nothing to compare "stripped back" with. Variety is the spice of life and all that. Whilst my preference leans more towards the "stripped back" side of the fence it's interesting/nice to experience the other side occasionally.


Atb

[John Kirk]

I'm glad this thread has risen back to the top.  I had a couple things to say.

1.  I believe history will show the opportunity to build great new golf courses during the economic expansion from about 1983 - 2008, corresponding to the development of the Internet and electronic communications, was largely squandered on unsustainable, unwalkable designs.  It appears unlikely that another period of prolonged prosperity is possible in the foreseeable future.  With respect to golf, this is my greatest source of anger and disappointment, a result of letting the bastards run the asylum.  I want like-minded architects and designers to enjoy the fruits of our prosperity.

2.  I've said before that I often compare golf to baseball, a game where the results are straightforward most of the time, with a possibility for rare play exceptions to the rule.  A great golf course should yield rare plays, which can usually come in the form of shots from awkward stances, awkward or unusual lies due to differing vegetation, or from sand.  These types of plays test the golfer's patience and skill.

You can build a very good golf course without sand, but I enjoy greenside bunker shots as much as any play in golf.  There is great variety of shots offered within a good bunker.  You could conceivably offer a full compliment of sand plays by using as few as ten well-placed bunkers, maybe one or two for fairways and eight or nine by the green.  Make ten bunkers count, and they would add immense excitement and value to a course.

[Rich Goodale]

I agree with John K. et. al. that the fewer bunkers the better (particularly fairway ones--use the contours archies!).  One thing I find interesting these days is that I play my best fairway irons when my ball ends up in a fresh, unreplaced divot.  I HAVE to keep my head down and HAVE to focus on hitting down on the ball.  Alternatively, when my ball ends up on an invitingly fluffy piece of turf I am more likely to get distracted, lift my head up too soon and hit the ball unpleasantly thin.  The anecdotal GCA meme is that the ODGs waited to place their bunkers until they identified places where most shots tended to end up by looking for the most scarred ground.  Given that these days the equipment and techniques for bunker play, either in the fairway or near the green, makes up and down from sand far easier than up and down from turf (particularly where the ground is scarred), why not get rid of as many bunkers as possible and ask golfers to recover from rough ground rather than pristinely manicured sand?

[Thomas Dai]

Given that these days the equipment and techniques for bunker play, either in the fairway or near the green, makes up and down from sand far easier than up and down from turf (particularly where the ground is scarred), why not get rid of as many bunkers as possible and ask golfers to recover from rough ground rather than pristinely manicured sand?

+1


Atb

[Pete Lavallee]

One of the only complaints I heard about Pacific Dunes during our last KP there was from one of our better players. He lamented that the low pockets in the prime landing zones collected balls and thus made a divot farm. After witnessing the deep furrow he was trapped in I don't particularly like the idea of cultivated divots!

[Rich Goodale]

Pete


Pacific Dunes advertises itself as a links course.  If this is so, daily hand sanding of divot scrapes will solve this problem.  During the day if some eejit forgets to replace his or her divot and your ball ends up in a furrow that is called "rub of the green" which can be largely overcome by a sound mind and sound technique. If your playing partner threw his toys out of the pram just because he got unlucky, he is not as good of a player as you may have thought.


Slainte


Rich

[Ben Malach]

This thread questions ornamentation. Which I can agree is over done in most circumstances. Fitting hazards in to a landscape should not require building huge showy flashes and marking them with native chunking on every bunker. But when done correctly it defiantly adds to the connection of the golfing landscape to the existing site and its forms. We can all agree when a hazard or contour fits its setting it is art of the highest level. I think that we can also agree that most courses are over bunkered and under contoured. I think that this is why the work of Perry Maxwell is so important to the study of golf as he was so reticent to add a extraneous fairway bunker as pointed out above. But other than on special projects like the Loop could we get away from hiding bunkers and not letting people know of the pearls that exist in front of their nose. This gift I think is reserved for the best and even for them is a reprieve from building courses that shout. Golf very rarely allows us to build 18 quiet holes when we are building for a resort that needs to make raters experience 18 wow's rather than 18 inspirations which can grow in the mind of members or local players of a small municipal course.

[Tom_Doak]

Golf very rarely allows us to build 18 quiet holes when we are building for a resort that needs to make raters experience 18 wow's rather than 18 inspirations which can grow in the mind of members or local players of a small municipal course.

Ben:


Your last sentence has hit on the essence of the problem.  Does every architect and every developer really need to design for the raters?  If so, then we have reached a new low.  The average rater is no match for a thoughtful member.

[Mike_Young]

I'm glad this thread has risen back to the top.  I had a couple things to say.

1.  I believe history will show the opportunity to build great new golf courses during the economic expansion from about 1983 - 2008, corresponding to the development of the Internet and electronic communications, was largely squandered on unsustainable, unwalkable designs.  It appears unlikely that another period of prolonged prosperity is possible in the foreseeable future.  With respect to golf, this is my greatest source of anger and disappointment, a result of letting the bastards run the asylum.  I want like-minded architects and designers to enjoy the fruits of our prosperity.

John, that growth of golf courses had nothing to do with golf and all to do with real estate values.  Golf was used and then thrown away.  The golf design powers that be at that time were no good and IMHO any guy starting was intimidated and felt those guys knew what they were doing.  And this was because there had been no need to train archies since the 30's.....the potential is here for that to repeat itself in another 20 years or so...  There was mostly bad golf built after WW2 until the 90's.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm reminded of a line from Sergeant York, the 1941 film starring Gary Cooper about Alvin York, poor farm boy from the mountains of Tennessee who became the most decorated American solder of WWI.  In one scene, Alvin's mother is noting how the land below them is rich and fertile, and the landowners there well-off, while up in the mountain the Yorks work very hard but are very poor, the rocky soil yielding barely enough to keep them fed. And Ma York says:  "Queer how the folks that lives on the bottom looks down on the folks on top."

Which is to say: Queer how the original sea-side course and home of golf that has impressed and inspired industry professionals for over a century would be deemed an utter failure if built today -- as dull as dishwater compared to its modern-day equivalents. For every journalist/rater who might recognize the strengths of a newly-built St. Andrews as a field of play, there'd be a thousand journalists and raters ready to anoint Cabot Cliffs a "10" before it even opened. Earlier admirers of The Old Course like Dr. Mackenzie and Max Behr and Bobby Jones and Bernard Darwin didn't use terms like "shot values" or focus on "memorability"; I guess as experts they were too busy appreciating the actual golf that could be played there. It makes me wonder what today's experts are "too busy appreciating"?   

Peter
PS - man, I don't understand it myself, but this modern-day change/development has been bugging me for quite a while now -- and more than I know it should. But something is really rubbing me the wrong way about this, i.e. this acute and snobbish sensitivity to "eye candy" and yet a seemingly total blindness to how the "spectacular" has similarly so little to do with the actual game. I know that there is no one here but us chickens, and that we get the golf courses we deserve -- but I find myself wishing that there could be only one rater in the world, and only one list: Sean Arble, and his Top 100 Value Propositions.   

[Sean_A]

Golf very rarely allows us to build 18 quiet holes when we are building for a resort that needs to make raters experience 18 wow's rather than 18 inspirations which can grow in the mind of members or local players of a small municipal course.

Ben:


Your last sentence has hit on the essence of the problem.  Does every architect and every developer really need to design for the raters?  If so, then we have reached a new low.  The average rater is no match for a thoughtful member.

Raters are only part of the story...that goes hand in glove with coffee table photography.  Some angles of particular holes/features can come to define a course in the mind of the casual magazine reading golfer.

However....speaking as a rater...its painful to think of golf courses in terms of quality rather than interest. Looking at courses from a quality perspective forces me to look for things rather than see what is there.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Looking at courses from a quality perspective forces me to look for things rather than see what is there.

Yes, this is my problem with a lot of the "checklist" ranking formulas, as well.


For me, the ultimate interest in a course is based on how many interesting holes it has.  How many people really choose where to play based on a lack of weaknesses?

[Jud_T]

So the impact of the slam-bam-thank-you-mam rater experience has Trumped, pun intended, the thoughtful consideration of multiple play member or local experience.  Now that I'm again looking at college rankings for another kid and looking more closely at the criteria used, I realize how silly pretty much all of these lists are and how possibly destructive they can be if taken at face value. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()