Flatness and apparent flatness

[Thomas Dai]

Recently I played a venue for The Open that is known for the flatness of the holes nearest the clubhouse. Very enjoyable it was too.
Playing the ‘flat’ holes, very flat mostly, was intriguing with a less significant degree of dips and ridges and humps and larger features to visualise and focus on. The inability, in comparison to the norm, to judge distance, landing areas, angles, hazards, putting surfaces all combined to enhance the puzzle of playing a hole, and in an enjoyable way.


Some questions -
Is flatness and featurelessness underrated?
Is there a place for flatness on modern courses?
Do we sometimes desire too many features on courses?
Can less features be a playing benefit?


Thoughts?


Atb

[Sean_A]

ATB

Yes, flatness is under-rated. Your example has a few cool elements which I really like.  First, often times it is difficult to exactly know where the sand is because teh sight line is so flat with hunkered down bunkers.  One can often see brown areas or bit of brown areas and immediately start thinking how to avoid that spot, but there are perhaps more dangerous places to be!  Second, many of the greens have a slight rise at the front making the judgement for the kick up harder than it seems it should be.  This isn't really the case Hoylake, but Woodhall Spa has some biggish greens which flow from fairways and so judging distance can be very hard.

Anyway...I think all courses need a few very good flat holes. I even think they should be sought out on more hilly properties.

Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

Is flatness and featurelessness underrated? 
I would say that flatness is underrated. Many of the worlds greatest golf courses are on links land.


Is there a place for flatness on modern courses?
Yes. Flatness can make a golf course interesting and enjoyable, and lss costly to maintain. There is less surface area to mow and irrigate. On sloped terrain, bunkers generally capture balls on the fly. On flat terrain, bunkers can be positioned to capture balls after they have landed, bounced and rolled for a stretch. Flat terrain bunkers can collect what the terrain feeds them. These kinds of bunkers cast shadow on the landscape.

Do we sometimes desire too many features on courses?
Can less features be a playing benefit?
Yes and yes. What does a golf hole really need? It needs interesting contour on and around the greens and two or three features to navigate over or around, through the green.

[Jeff Schley]

ATB

Yes, flatness is under-rated.
Ciao

One of my ex gf's would love you for this. She was.........flat. However saw her like 5 years later and had suddenly purchased a way out of her flatness.

[Tom_Doak]

Anyway...I think all courses need a few very good flat holes. I even think they should be sought out on more hilly properties.

Flatness is under-rated ... on hilly sites.  I'd agree with that, because it adds variety.


Flatness is not under-rated on the hundreds and thousands of courses in flat places like Florida.  There, what you desperately need is variety, however you can manage it:  sand, water, trees, texture, abrupt elevation changes, etc.


The one place I struggle is the idea that water adds variety to a flat landscape.  To me, ponds reinforce flatness.  I understand needing them for drainage sometimes, but they don't have to be nearly as big as they are built for that purpose.

[Thomas Dai]

Is flatness and featurelessness underrated? 
I would say that flatness is underrated. Many of the worlds greatest golf courses are on links land.

Many of the worlds greatest courses are indeed links, but it would be incorrect to label all links courses as flat, far far, from it.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Talent is a good descriptive word, but it's not much good for discussion purposes: an architect either has it in spades or he doesn't.
If he does, there's at least a chance he'll make consistently good and interesting choices throughout an 18 hole design -- in which case the resulting course will be a very fine one.
But it will be a fine one not because (as the inevitable discussions/analysis about it would suggest) it is on flat (or hilly) land, or because it has pot (or blowout) bunkers, or because it is strategic (or penal), or because it is on 200 (or 500) acres; or because it has (or doesn't have) returning nines; but instead only because the architect had real talent.
It's like the 12th at Wallasey: I suggest that the bunkers work well and look nice; Tom points out (rightly) that they don't work/look so good on the 12th.
Yes: but that speaks not to a flaw in the basic approach or to a mistaken ethos of the game or to a misguided 'philosophy' of design, but simply to a failure/misstep of talent, ie a poor choice to 'gild the lily' in the very spot that needed it least.
Flat sites? Sure, why not? If an architect of real talent is given enough time to make it work.
IMHO of course.
Peter
 

[Sean_A]

Is flatness and featurelessness underrated? 
I would say that flatness is underrated. Many of the worlds greatest golf courses are on links land.

Many of the worlds greatest courses are indeed links, but it would be incorrect to label all links courses as flat, far far, from it.
Atb

In truth the vast majority of links are not flat.  Sometimes there is confusion between elevation change and flatness.  TOC can't have more than 15 feet of elevation change, but its far from flat...even though it does have a few flat holes...one of which, the 9th, is the worst hole on the course by a long way. Still...this is ideal terrain (perhaps the best on the planet) because we get awkward stances, ball flight control issues and wee features which can be used to control and direct shots without the tiresome aspect of mountain climbing.   

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The starting and finishing holes at both Hoylake and Westward Ho! are about as flat as you'll find but both these courses have some very nice humps and hollows and dunes and elevation changes in other areas.
And then you have the likes of Rosapenna Sandy Hills and Cruden Bay and Carne where the elevation changes are at the more severe end of the links scale.

atb

[JESII]

I just cannot get my hands around "flatness as an asset".


I say that because I don't believe a hole with the tee and the green at the same elevation is necessarily flat. If that's the argument, I'll step aside. Thomas seems clear in his opener that it's the contours he's thinking about.


In my opinion, contour is the single greatest asset a plot of land can offer in the playing of the game.


Being located on sandy soil is great...the expectation of wind is great...in a locale/climate well suited for golf is great...


Without contour and some slope you're simply not playing the full game in my opinion.


Suggesting flatness adds to the variety of a course is a bit like saying a dentist appointment would add to the variety of a vacation week...

[Peter Pallotta]

I suppose there's something to be said for playing two-dimensional chess instead of three.
 
I know that on Star Trek Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk played the latter, but it seems too difficult to me -- and plus, Captain Kirk only won because his moves were so illogical.

Jim S (note the same first name as Jim Kirk) has the advantage because he plays his golf at Huntingdon Valley

I've played a couple of "Florida-style" golf courses, and I have to admit that I "see the lines" better on such two dimensional landscapes

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
If you are referring to dead flat holes without any contour or features I would say no, that is not underrated.  It depends on what you are defining as "flat"?  I am playing a course this week, Harbour Town Golf Links that has probably four feet of total elevation change.  I would call that flat but it is anything but featureless and contains plenty of interest and contour and vertical hazards (trees).  What about a hole like #17 at The Old Course.  Again, I would call that flat but as with any great "flat" hole, it contains plenty of interest and prominent features that influence play.  A dead flat hole with no hazards and zero going on is anything but great and boring in my opinion.
Mark