Golf Architecture: Confining v. Liberating

[Mike Hendren]

Driving to work today I was trying to think of a single word to describe Wolf Point.  I came up with "liberating."  By comparison, I feel that golf architecture it too often confining or restrictive.  I feel fenced in, if you will.

Your thoughts?

Nobody puts Bogey in a corner.

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

I wrote an article a few years back that talked about the same issues [I think] in terms of "freedom" and "lack of boundaries" [as in mowing lines].


The ideal would be for the golfer to feel as free as the architect when he first walks the site, knowing that he could take the routing almost anywhere he wants to go.

[Mike_Young]

On the good ones it about the whole and not the hole...

[Tom Ferrell]

On the good ones it about the whole and not the hole...

So I'm reading Alan Watts' "The Way of Zen" *last night,* and here comes this thread.  Very interesting connection here.


Watts defines Zen as a "way of liberation, concerned not with what is good or bad or advantageous but what is."


Zen masters Doak and Young seem to have the peripheral mind at work in their thinking.  The perfect design, to borrow from yet another Zen master (Grateful Dead lyricist Robert Hunter), got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.  Now, we all know that perfection is unattainable, but I certainly believe that having an ideal of undefined strategy and unforced shots sets the architect off on the way.


To my mind, Old MacDonald is a FANTASTIC example of this approach.  As is Ballyneal.  The "new" Pinehurst No. 2 also fits the bill.  The crowned greens, regardless of their historic "intent" create 360-degree targets.  The whole vs. the hole.


Crazy connections the universe sometimes provides!

[Tom_Doak]

To my mind, Old MacDonald is a FANTASTIC example of this approach.  As is Ballyneal.  The "new" Pinehurst No. 2 also fits the bill.  The crowned greens, regardless of their historic "intent" create 360-degree targets.  The whole vs. the hole.

Old Mac pales in comparison to The Sheep Ranch or The Loop in this regard.

[Tom Ferrell]

Neither of which I have played yet, and both of which are on my list!

[Eric Smith]

Bogey,


Glad you enjoyed Wolf Point. It's one of my favorites. Another favorite is a new one I played last week in Wisconsin - Mammoth Dunes. Well the preview nine anyway. It is most definitely "liberating" as you put it. I had my best 9 hole score in 2 years. Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where they stripe the roadway with wide lanes. "So luxurious" as Elaine says.

[Ken Moum]

This encompasses most of what I feel about golf courses.


It's why I like Brora so much.


And it's what I was trying to get at with my comment about test of skill vs. test of character. I thought people would understand what I meant, but most didn't.


I think now it should have been: Good American golfers mostly see golf as a test of skill, hence the narrow fairways, forced carries, target golf, the demand for perfect conditions and proportional punishment, etc.  Others, including most of the Scots I've met are more likely to see golf as a test of the  ability  to overcome misfortune. 


In the latter example, wide fairways, invisible but punitive bunkers, no real expectation of perfect conditions, acceptance of crazy bounces, etc.,etc, all point to a game where the  goal isn't just  to see if you can hit a given shot, but one where your ability to carry on after one of those things happens.


Because I have a limited amount of  skill, but I can play out of a bad lie, and my game gets better the closer I get to the hole, I prefer the latter over the former.


Freedom vs. restriction


Liberating vs. confining


I think those are going to be a part of my course rating system....


K

[JC Urbina]

Michael H,


We share the same thoughts.


From my interview on GCA in 2010,


I tried to cut and paste my interview with ran from 2010, it was the portion on St Andrews and what I learned from studying the Old Course, "No boundaries"   If someone wants to help me with that specific portion that would be great otherwise look back almost 8 years ago and how  I reflected on grassing lines and  how it applied to Pacific Dunes and every course since then




     
 
 
 
 
 

[John Connolly]

This is one of the points I was trying to make with my "easy off the tee, hard at the green" thread a few months back.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64566.25.html

The sense of freedom off the tee is what we want - allow strategic decisions, don't have them forced upon us. And the 360 degree approach into the green is along the same lines, albeit not often a practical or possible one. Tree overgrowth is a principal confounder of this experience. What better illustration of this ideal than Philly Cricket via Keith Foster and its committed membership?

[Matthew Essig]

As with everything, I think there is a place for both and moderation. A liberating or zen aesthetic would likely be a course I say I want to play everyday for the rest of my life, but having a course where it is a bit more confining isn't bad to mix in. Asking me "to hit driver, you need to hit it over the bunker on the inside of the dogleg otherwise you need to aim left and hit a 3 wood" is a nice change of pace.

[Mike Nuzzo]

As with everything, I think there is a place for both and moderation. A liberating or zen aesthetic would likely be a course I say I want to play everyday for the rest of my life, but having a course where it is a bit more confining isn't bad to mix in. Asking me "to hit driver, you need to hit it over the bunker on the inside of the dogleg otherwise you need to aim left and hit a 3 wood" is a nice change of pace.

Matthew - What if that shot was at Wolf Point too? You can have that shot with either a big or small fairway - as long as that shot is your best odds of winning the hole, that shot will have meaning.


Thank you Mike!!! Great to see you!!! Stay free my friend! You're words have been liberating!!!


I wrote something too....
From my essay in "Links to St. Andrews"
Freedom at Wolf Point is ever-present. Players can choose any number of ways to complete their objectives. They are limited only by their imaginations. As are we all.

[Carl Nichols]

Bogey,


Glad you enjoyed Wolf Point. It's one of my favorites. Another favorite is a new one I played last week in Wisconsin - Mammoth Dunes. Well the preview nine anyway. It is most definitely "liberating" as you put it. I had my best 9 hole score in 2 years. Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where they stripe the roadway with wide lanes. "So luxurious" as Elaine says.

That's how I felt at Streamsong Black.  For various reasons, I played Black, then Blue, then Red, and incredibly Red felt confining, having played it last. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike N broaches the key point: that shots need to have “meaning”. Otherwise liberty soon becomes license, and license in turn leads to rather a pointless game — save for the ego gratification this faux liberty fleetingly provides. As always, the Old Course serves as a good answer/guide: look to its rumpled fairways and to its greens as clues to providing liberty without licence. Interestingly, over the decades some very fine (and insightful) golfers have said that they only began fully appreciating the course after repeated plays; a stark contrast, it seems, to the near-instant love and very high praise/rankings that many of today’s newest courses tend to garner.
Peter

[Thomas Dai]

Liberty, freedom, flexibility etc.
Didn’t Alister MacKenzie’s winning entry in the Ideal Hole competition have Player V approaching the green from the right rear quarter of the green (ie nearly over the back)?
Atb

[Ken Moum]

Mike N broaches the key point: that shots need to have “meaning”. Otherwise liberty soon becomes license, and license in turn leads to rather a pointless game — save for the ego gratification this faux liberty fleetingly provides.

I'm not so sure I agree.  At some point the  object of putting the ball in a 4 1/4" hole is going to come into play.


If you make wide fairways without any trouble, perhaps it makes the tee shots boring, but I certainly wasn't asking  for that.  Anyway, even if the fairway is THAT forgiving, the next shot, or two, has to reach a putting surface.


If the putting surfaces are so big there's no challenge to get a ball on them the putting itself will become incredibly difficult.


But there just aren't any courses like that. Even some of the mopey, home-made courses I've been playing on since I was a sprout have "stuff" that makes the game somewhat more interesting.


I grew up in the Red River Valley of the north.  There is nowhere I've seen that comes close to  being as flat as that. The  valley is  as  wide as 60 miles, with an average slope of 1/2 ft.per mile.  So I a have seen some featureless golf courses.


The Old Course  is  a good example, because really good playersare so befuddled by it at first.  Personally I think that's due in part to the seeming randomness of its hazards and its expectations of golfers.


How often do you see a course where two "identical" shots down the  middle of a fairway can end up in such different outcomes?


It drives the best players batty but someone like me who has limited control over their tee shots sees the excitement of the crapshoot.


OTOH, I hate prescriptive golf.  The idea of trying to find my way around a course like Harbour Town makes me nauseous.


K

[Ira Fishman]

First, it is great to see Peter back on the board.


Second, this is a fantastic thread.  The word "Liberating" is wonderful way to describe golf courses that resonate.


Third, I view "Liberating" as making your mind and senses go in places that they would not otherwise go and not necessarily primarily about width, angles, or contour in and of themselves.  One of the reasons that I love Lahinch so much is that I felt Liberated even though several of its holes are Confined.  I would never have used Liberated until Bogey did so thanks.


Ira

[Rich Goodale]

Having played Myopia recently after 5 years of tree removal, liberation rocks!

[Tim Martin]

Mike N broaches the key point: that shots need to have “meaning”. Otherwise liberty soon becomes license, and license in turn leads to rather a pointless game — save for the ego gratification this faux liberty fleetingly provides. As always, the Old Course serves as a good answer/guide: look to its rumpled fairways and to its greens as clues to providing liberty without licence. Interestingly, over the decades some very fine (and insightful) golfers have said that they only began fully appreciating the course after repeated plays; a stark contrast, it seems, to the near-instant love and very high praise/rankings that many of today’s newest courses tend to garner.
Peter

Peter-When you played the Old Course did the experience deliver more meaning on a shot by shot basis or as collection? Rather were you hooked immediately or moreso upon reflection when the round was over? Thank you.

[Ira Fishman]

Further to mine about Lahinch: Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are Confined but #4 and #5  in particular make your mind say "WTF?" in ways that very few holes do.  That would not work by itself if the rest of the Course and its setting did not compliment them fully. Liberating to me means going places that are non-rational as we otherwise would define Rational.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

The Old Course  is  a good example, because really good playersare so befuddled by it at first.  Personally I think that's due in part to the seeming randomness of its hazards and its expectations of golfers.

How often do you see a course where two "identical" shots down the  middle of a fairway can end up in such different outcomes?

There are some weird comparisons being drawn here.


There is no course where the drive means more in terms of possible second shots than The Old Course.  Royal Melbourne is on the short list of runners-up.


But then many of the other examples being used here are among the widest courses ever built, where the position of the drive may or may not matter very much at all.


If you're going to build a course that gives the player freedom off the tee, you ought to have enough going on at the other end to make it matter where he drives, and to reward him for choosing the best line for himself. 


Freedom from consequences does not often promote model citizenship; it will more often devolve into laziness or even anarchy.

[Sean_A]

TOC is not the liberating course folks give it credit for...that is old school thinking. Two of the most famous holes, 16 & 17, famous because they were liberating, are no longer so.  In fact, I would say both these holes are now very constrictive and therefore the exact opposite of what folks are citing.  In the case of 17...it is still a great hole..not so much for 16.  As Matthew suggests, this shouldn't be a debate about liberating V constricting, which btw is pretty much a rehash of penal V strategic.  No, both ends of the spectrum are important and essential.  The debate should be how do we how do we make either end of the spectrum more meaningful to all classes of golfers.  The question might well have no answer, but first we need to define "meaningful". 


On any well designed course the concept of meaningful is self evident. Meaningful could run the gambit from one must execute to one must decide.  While forcing a player to execute has its place in architecture, it is the decision-making aspect of shotmaing which is far more interesting because it is here the game is taken out of the archie's hands and into the golfer's.  Not only does decision-making require the golfer to be honest about his abilities, but it also requires the golfer to read the situation in terms of the game and the match.


But I reckon folks such as Tom are speaking about courses which aren't very good because they are too liberating.  I am not personally acquainted with such courses, but I am acquainted with a ton of courses which are too constrictive. Often times constrictive courses have nothing to do with architecture so for the most part the constrictive side of the debate is misrepresented.  That said, I can fully understand the constrictive approach where championship golf is a genuine prime element of concern, but this should be rarity.  I also must say that a much more thorough thought process should be undertaken before classic courses are slowly turned into constrictive championship venues.  I don't think folks evaluate what is being sacrificed and who will benefit. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Experiencing what you don't like sometimes helps you appreciate what you do like or do like more.
Unpleasant as it may seem in some ways it's good to occasionally experience a confined course as then when a liberating is played it's more appreciable.
Not suggesting being locked up in a golfing-Gulag is good but when you've been confined indoors for a while with some ghastly illness or whatever then there is a terrific feeling of liberation when you finally get out and about again.
atb

[Jason Topp]

I put this in the Wolf Point thread but probably should have posted here:


"The second time around, I found myself aiming for very precise targets off the tee despite the width - 1.  Left front corner of green; 2 - between bunkers on right; 3 - decided to hit it right; 4 - knew I wanted to be right, 5 - hit it right to try and shorten as much as possible; 6 - aimed for tree on right edge of green because I knew left was death . . . etc. [/size] [/color][/size]Wide courses are no longer rare.  Wide courses that reward proper placement of your tee shot are."


I did not find Wolf Point liberating.  I found the penalty for a wayward tee shot to be different than it is at your standard course.[/color]

[Kalen Braley]

This is a great topic, thanks for getting it going.


After reading a few posts, It would seem a point of clarification might be the Illusion of Liberation as opposed to being actual.  From what i can tell, you can spray the ball at TOC and "get away with it", but that doesn't mean you avoid a nasty approach shot where even getting par is miraculous...