[BCowan]

Does large scale over vault a course into a higher echelon?  Is scale eye candy for the simple minded? 

[jeffwarne]

Not sure I completely understand "scale" but I love intimate courses, and generally dislike a huge scale

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - I've often complained (or at least worried) about how many of the top new courses in recent years have been built on such a large scale (and larger by the minute). And yet: the widest & largest scaled golf hole I've personally ever played is an homage to the 18th at St Andrews Old on a replica course northeast of Toronto. It was years ago that I played it, maybe around the time or even before I got interested in gca. And yet I was immediately smitten by it then, and I still remember it clearly even after all this time.

I mention this to say: I don't think "scale" appeals to the "simple minded" -- not because I myself may not be simple-minded, but because I don't think such large scale is aimed at the mind at all; it's instead aimed at (and engages) our emotions and our spirits. My initial reaction to and fond memories of that replica golf hole had/have nothing to do with my mind/ideas/gca mantras. It was the "feeling" of it that held the appeal, the exhilaration of (seemingly) endless space and possibilities -- and so I assume that for most other golfers it's that same kind of emotional appeal that today's large scaled courses has on them.
Peter       

[Tom_Doak]

Yes!


(Nearly) every "Best New" winner for the last umpteen years has been even bigger than the last.


What's on the horizon?  Mammoth Dunes.


Sooner or later, this trend must end.  But that would depend on raters catching on to it.

[Tom_Doak]

I got Tara Iti ranked 50-75 in the world.

Too low! 


Bill, I've built plenty of wide fairways in my time.  So have your buddies, Bill and Ben.


Sooner or later somebody's going to go the opposite direction and steal the show.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom and others will tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you go in the opposite direction and steal the show without building a Muirfield-meets-Merion, ie part of the "rota" as it were and steeped in classicism, but on the tougher, "fairer", better-player-focused championship test side of the spectrum. The modern cognoscenti (architects and writers and hip raters and discussion board aficionados alike) have denigrated RTJ for long enough, no?

[jeffwarne]

Tom,
Short of a ball rollback, what can be done to "shrink" the scale, and maintain a reasonable playable area.
More bunkers create more maintained playable area, but are more expensive than grass.
Fairways clustered together-a la two, three and 18 at Sebonack seem to be one way to maintain width and playablility, though liability could be a concern.


Also, does "scale" have to be consistent throughout a course?
Can there be very intimate areas and wide large scale features at various times throughout a great course?

[Tim_Weiman]

Not sure I completely understand "scale" but I love intimate courses, and generally dislike a huge scale

Jeff,


I totally agree with you.

[Sean_A]

This question is part of why I like Kington and Cleeve Cloud so much.  The courses are actually quite intimate in length and design ambition, especially Kington.  However, the properties are huge scale, especially Cleeve Cloud.  A course like Cleeve Cloud would never be conceived today. 

I think its quite difficult to build intimate scale on an intimate property with all the fuss over safety, thus the overuse of trees. I fear that for most, intimate means tree lined, secluded.  I think of intimate as a short walk using minimal land, but the best of these still affords views, even if only internal, and a sense of the property being larger than it truly is.    There are reasons why so many classic designs are still cherished despite the advanvement of technology.

All that said, it would be churlish to criticize some of these modern classics because of the use of scale when
the property is begging for this kind of use and so many fine products are the result.  There is room in the world for all sorts and styles of courses.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

 There are reasons why so many classic designs are still cherished despite the advanvement of technology.

All that said, it would be churlish to criticize some of these modern classics because of the use of scale when
the property is begging for this kind of use and so many fine products are the result.  There is room in the world for all sorts and styles of courses.

Ciao

+1

[Peter Pallotta]

Churlish is a terrific word, Sean, and you're probably right to use it in this context. But: when we're talking about the top/most talented creative people working in the design field today, it is a little unsettling to see them all repeatedly choosing the "safe bet" time and time again -- and large scaled golf courses have undoubtedly been the safest of bets for 20 years now.
Peter

[Ally Mcintosh]

Large scale is generally overrated.


In scale is most certainly not.

[Tom_Doak]

All that said, it would be churlish to criticize some of these modern classics because of the use of scale when
the property is begging for this kind of use and so many fine products are the result.  There is room in the world for all sorts and styles of courses.

I don't disagree with your first sentence ... "some" of them had to be at a big scale, and others have searched out property to match it.


But you don't see nearly as many new courses as I do.  Nearly everything now is big or bigger.


What I'm observing is that there isn't room in the world anymore for new courses like Woking or Royal Worlington & Newmarket or Merion.  They just aren't big enough to please the Masters of the Universe who play golf today.

[jeffwarne]

But you don't see nearly as many new courses as I do.  Nearly everything now is big or bigger.


What I'm observing is that there isn't room in the world anymore for new courses like Woking or Royal Worlington & Newmarket or Merion.  They just aren't big enough to please the Masters of the Universe who play golf today.

The Masters of the universe who built those previous courses were convinced they had to protect themselves from some brute FLYING it 250, not  330. and before that 200.
Doesn't matter whether their approach is wrongheaded or not, or if you agree or disagree.


Really no different-and face it, The Masters of the Universe, almost always, now and back then, are those who control new course building-and are always convinced the uS Open is around the corner.
Equipment and the ball have influenced scale, and I'm just happy to find out there are others who are less enamored with all the huge scale courses.


Put another way, were Merion and others mentioned INTENDED to be on a small scale, or did they just become that...

[Peter Pallotta]

My 2 cents Jeff - "intention" had little to do with it.
The Scots put the Old Course there because the land wasn't much good for anything else, eg like growing food.
The swells in Philadelphia, even though they were at the top of the social ladder, wouldn't think of using 600 acres when 240 acres would do.
But now, in this new large scale model, clients/developers think nothing of buying up 3000 acres; and architects aren't embarrassed to claim that they need 800 of those acres in order to 'find' the best 6900 yard golf course.
And the definition of "the best" has never been as narrow.
The expectations and ethos IMO are completely out of whack.
(I don't think either the C&C course or the DMK course at Sand Valley are expecting to hold any championship there, let alone a US Open - so that's not the excuse/rationale).

[BCowan]

Equipment and the ball have influenced scale

   Not so fast Jack.  Lets compare two Championship courses by the same Archie in the Golden Age (Apples to Apples).  Golf's most beloved does it most excellent in the Donald Ross DVD.  Oakland Hills has large scale and Inverness has smaller scale.  People kept telling me how big the scale was at OHCC (S), I wasn't blown away by it's scale.  I think some-many people use scale as a means to say a course is better then another and large scale gets deemed better screw the Architectural merit such as routing, green areas, bunker location ect.  IMO Scale is a crutch. 

and I'm just happy to find out there are others who are less enamored with all the huge scale courses.

+1

[Blake Conant]

Sand Hills is a good measuring stick for the amount of turf required to have a great course in a landscape with gigantic scale.  Mammoth Dunes will have double the amount of turf Sand Hills has, and I highly doubt that extra turf is *needed* to accommodate golf or to fit the landscape.  I think the main reason we're seeing huge scale is to justify all the art and "Pine Valley" type bunkers that seem to be accompanying these courses.


Garden City was built on sand... yet no one seems to want to build that.  I want to see the GC style mimicked more than I want to see another course with 30,000 sq ft waste bunkers. 

[jeffwarne]

Garden City was built on sand... yet no one seems to want to build that.  I want to see the GC style mimicked more than I want to see another course with 30,000 sq ft waste bunkers.

+1
That said, they built East Hampton and the world yawned....

[Anthony Gholz]

Ben et al


Our small scale Golden Age course is on 138 acres including clubhouse, parking lot, small scale practice area (irons only from the front), and "small scale" (non Olympic size) swimming pool.


While developing our new (2014) Master Plan our architect found many of the golden age tees since abandon and have brought them back as well as stretching a couple holes as far as possible utilizing the high points of our main dune (again small scale at 25-30 feet).  If ever implemented our new course length would stretch a gargantuan 6750 yards!


The clubs lawyers had a field day with the notion of restoring those "old" tees just off the back or side of the previous green.  Something about "60 degree cones of play" and "300 foot wide playing corridors" and "separation of playing areas."


We still have a BAR for use before driving home.


Anthony

[Sean_A]

Tom

For sure, I see far fewer new courses than you, but that is a conscious choice because I generally prefer small footprint golf.  I also agree that the very concept of small footprint golf is x% more than 100 years ago....and there are reasons for that as well...and they were happening well before mega distance and big golf.  Health and safety is a huge reason for an increased footprint...and so are carts.  I reckon health and safety can largely be blamed directly on archies because few if any fight back against the concept. 

Pietro

Don't lose sight that what we see on this board are the latest and greatest which happens to be huge scale golf. There is a bit of  movement to scale golf down, but it is a slow process partly because the media focuses so much on the big splash projects and partly because golfers don't want to know.  I have played a few Stiff designs which are very good and small in concept, yet nobody cares.  Sometimes ya have to look in the mirror to find the guilty party.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

 Something about "60 degree cones of play" and "300 foot wide playing corridors" and "separation of playing areas."


We still have a BAR for use before driving home.


Anthony

Great quotes.


I'd also argue that players in the group approaching the green and on the tee are far more aware of others than they would be with described corridors

[BCowan]

Caledonia is an example of modern day small scale.  Played it 20 years ago and loved it then.  Was  on around 100-110 acres

[Tom_Doak]

Caledonia is an example of modern day small scale.  Played it 20 years ago and loved it then.  Was  on around 100-110 acres

Yes.  That was a tiny piece of land, and Mike Strantz did an amazing job with it.


It won no awards.  Then he built Stonehouse, a much inferior course on 3x the acreage, and it won the GOLF DIGEST Best New award.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm not so sure that I equate scale = big.  Big can be good or bad it would seem, but proper "scale" would be does the course fit the size of the landscape.  The question becomes, if its a sprawling wide open site, are the fairways and greens appropriately sized, and visa versa.


For example, it seems like the narrow fairways and small greens at Harbour town are to scale for most of the course...and then when it opens up on 18,  a wide landing strip and larger green site is provided  to fit the "scale".


But that's just my interpretation.

[Joe Hancock]

The thing about scale, seems to me, is that the more the designer attempts to fit features into the site by utilizing scale, the less the element of surprise is likely to happen. Not that the site should be ignored, but let a bit of whimsy take hold from time to time.


The discussion reminds me of rules such as "long par 4= big green" and "short par 4= smaller green", etc. that we now look upon as bad rules.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()