[Grant Saunders]

In the meantime, I'm just pleased (even as merely an outside, casual observer) that more people are talking about using less land to build more compact golf courses that require less inputs. That 'idea' I like very much.

Peter

Peter

Is your country not littered with short low input golf courses?

Im not sure I understand why one would have to be "built" to expose people to a concept that in all honestly forms the absolute backbone of the golfing world.

Did you perhaps mean a short low input course that posters on here may have heard of/care about?

[Grant Saunders]

Regarding width, I have always been fascinated by the negativity towards long courses and their need for more land yet width, which also requires more land, seems to get a free pass

[Peter Pallotta]

Grant, yes, that was it -- I've indeed played many a short and modest course, but no one's heard of any of them, and the reports back wouldn't be any good even if they had. No, in terms of having a broad public discussion and engaging golfers across the country about the viability of a more compact golf environment, I can't think of any course better than this one, at this time, by this architect, at this resort.
P

[Ally Mcintosh]

Afraid to dip my toes in here but thought I’d explore one tangent:


Most designers have contradictory constraints which often make routing courses both a challenge but in the end rewarding: They are given definite tight boundaries to a property and asked to get a “championship” length course by the client, often when such a course does not fit satisfactorily within those boundaries. They don’t have much scope to find “the best holes that the land gives” and really should have pushed their client to build a smaller course. But they’d probably then be replaced. So they don’t push that hard.


Tom is in a very unusual position in that a lot of his courses have given him thousands of acres from which to find the best holes. The boundary constraints have not been there. The client ones have though, even if they go unsaid. So every course where he’s “gone out and found the best holes” has really worked within the same constraint that he’s set himself here: A course of an approximate certain yardage. It may be 6,000, it may be 6,200. That will fall out in the process. But really, there are a number of best holes on these kind of sites and a bunch of decisions to be made in routing them. If you set yourself something to aim at, it actually becomes easier to achieve.

[Niall C]

Ally

Very well said. I know that back in my student days, I found it much easier to design with "constraints" than to design with a completely free hand. I suppose it might be the difference between problem solving and pure design.

Niall

[Niall C]

JC,


I’d argue you’re not daring to question, you’re just poking at the fringes of the conversation in an antagonistic manner.

Well, your argument would be wrong.

+1

JC - I don't know that I totally agree with everything you've said but by asking questions you've moved the discussion on and I think expanded on the topic. It also seems to me that your manner has been more frank than antagonistic, and given that this website is about frank discussion on gca then more power to your elbow.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Tom is in a very unusual position in that a lot of his courses have given him thousands of acres from which to find the best holes. The boundary constraints have not been there. The client ones have though, even if they go unsaid. So every course where he’s “gone out and found the best holes” has really worked within the same constraint that he’s set himself here

Ally:


I've had more than 1000 acres to play with at Cape Kidnappers (though most of it was way too steep), Tumble Creek, Rock Creek, and Dismal River ... so it's not that common, even for me.  I suppose if you go by the average, though, the 80,000 acres in Montana has a profound impact.


But you are correct, we always begin doing routings with a set of expectations, stated or not.  I've always tried to keep my mind as open as I can, and not reject routings that didn't come back to the clubhouse at the ninth hole (or at the eighteenth!), or weren't par 72, or had consecutive par-5 holes, or "too many" par-3"s.  But I'm always aware of the client's tolerance for such indiscretions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

First, I think its great that a well known developer and architect are pushing very publicly for a shorter course, even if all of us can disagree somewhat on the details.  As I mentioned in another post, so many golfers have been convinced that even though they are playing at 6300 yards, somehow its not a good course unless each hole has another 50 yards of tee behind it.


As to "want vs. need" despite the length obsession, my observation is most golfers pick courses mainly on the internet now.  Pictures are great, reviews are good, but one component of a course search is yardage.  If the average retail golfer likes to play at, say 5800 yards, he looks to see if the course has 5800 yard or similar tees.  Same goes with 6300, 6800, 7000+, etc.  If they aren't there, they go on to the next course to review it.


And, they wouldn't care a hoot about what golfclubatlas.com says, they know what they like and seek it out.  Now, from our (architecture buffs) perspective, those things seem, sometimes, laughable.  But they are like Popeye...."I yam what I yam.


I understand TD wants to change that mentality, somewhat one course at a time.  Long slog, though. LOL.

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting discussion.

It's been several years since I've written 'papers' (whether essays or briefing/issue notes), but I remember finding that, if I didn't truly understand the subject-matter, I could easily write 3000-5000 word papers. They were often very well received, and looked quite impressive. But it was only when I truly *did* understand the subject-matter that I could pare that down to 1500 words!

Which is to say: yes, sometimes (maybe even often times) 'constraints' are blessings in disguise and can lead to better work. But the best work of all comes when you know your craft really well, and understand the task at hand even better, and, with clear intentions and steadfast goals, you combine/meld the craft with the task.

Then outside constraints, whether present or not, become almost totally irrelevant: one's *internal* guide provides all the framework necessary, whether one calls that 'constraints' or 'restraint' or (perhaps most accurately) 'vision'.

For a wordy person-writer, the relatively rare times that I've possessed (or been possessed by) such a vision are the closest I ever gotten to what I think athletes describe as 'peak moments'.

Maybe it's the same for architects.   

Peter           

[BCrosby]

Peter -


I don't recall the name of the writer who apologized for the length of one of his letters by saying that he didn't have the time to make it shorter.


Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark Twain, maybe?  Also, Einstein said if you can't explain it to a five year old, you don't understand it well enough.


I recall my Dad asking me to write my business plan. He was an executive.  I came back with 20 pages, and he told me to shorten it to 3, leave out the fluff and important sounding words, a la Ronald Reagan when he was President (he only decided on 1 page memos summarizing the issue)


Or, another Dadism, a good idea can be explained in one sentence, or 2-3 at most. If it's essence can't be made clear quickly, its probably not a good idea.  And, if its not a good idea, 1000 more words describing/justifying/selling it won't make it one. (see, made it in just under the 3 sentence limit!)


Combining Dad and Einstein, case in point, E=mc 2

[Jeff_Brauer]

Back to the topic at hand, and Peter's post, especially,


".....

sometimes (maybe even often times) 'constraints' are blessings in disguise and can lead to better work. But the best work of all comes when you know your craft really well, and understand the task at hand even better, and, with clear intentions and steadfast goals, you combine/meld the craft with the task."

Yes, necessity is the mother of invention.

There is that ever present balance between design process and wild creativity.   

The design process is like the scientific process - ID the problem, propose solutions, pick best solution, engineer/develop that solution in finer detail.  That is where "form follows function" comes from.  As it relates to this discussion, once you decide to have a 7200 yard course (or have that decided for you) then how many tees are appropriate, how do you place them, etc.

Others, including the famous Disney designer whose name I have used, but can't currently recall, say don't employ any process at all.  Just start thinking, and no idea is too crazy, i.e., brainstorming.  That may work when creating cartoon characters, and has a place in golf design.  When designing a real world object, you probably have to listen to constraints (Don't go in those wetland!) which are identified by process. 

The best design solutions are responses to some limitation, not pure creativity, like "21 holes!"  The latter isn't what one designer calls "sincere" solutions to a problem.

[Rich Goodale]

Peter -


I don't recall the name of the writer who apologized for the length of one of his letters by saying that he didn't have the time to make it shorter.


Bob

Blaise Pascal, Robert, IIRC.  I'll say no more.


R

[Lou_Duran]

Peter -
I don't recall the name of the writer who apologized for the length of one of his letters by saying that he didn't have the time to make it shorter.
Bob

Bob Huntley used to remind us on occasion that "brevity is the soul of wit".  There are many reasons for writing and posting.  Some even involve informing and learning.

Interesting topic.  I've only been around JC once, at Akin GC where we had an enjoyable round at a golf course that checks most boxes for the right reasons.

I am not one to argue with the giants of the golf design and development business- Keiser and Doak- but I have to wonder the former's motivation given that he is a businessman and his demonstrated ability to earn profits.  To purposely build a short course (and yes, as a par 67-68 this does not mean that most holes are necessarily short or lack "interest") on a site that does not physically impose those restrictions seems counterintuitive. 

Perhaps Keiser is attempting to see if the market can be segmented.  I would think that this could be as easily accomplished with better, perhaps more teeing areas to provide flexibility and wider market appeal.  A good experiment nonetheless; hope to see how it works out.       

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou, I am with you on this one.  At least, my inclination (had he asked) would be to just eliminate the 7200 yard tees, settling on a max of 6850 (and maybe a little shorter, especially if going down to par 70)  That suits 99% of resort players (all really, regardless of where they play) and as mentioned,  even Andrew has no trouble playing GSW at 6700, but could play longer.


But, I do like the idea of someone starting to segment the market, to get everyone out of the idea that them MUST play a championship course to enjoy golf.  Of course, there would have to be some label twisting, i.e., that 6800 yard course is still called championship, to ensure no one would take the "downgrade" (play the same course, now labelled a "recreational" or players course, etc.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - 'course, we live in a world where businessmen have made millions marketing rocks as pets and selling tap water in bottles; so I don't think we have to worry too much about Mr. K being able to 'sell' a new course by Tom D. And, since he's also marketing himself, I'd guess that Mr. K is quite pleased to have the idea seem counter-intuitive.
P

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


No doubt. It is the perfect storm in a good way.  A park director trying to protect his public money (and own job) is less likely to take a risk. MK is using his own money, and even if it flops, he is making money on a dozen other courses.  Great place to try new ideas.

[Sean_A]

I wonder how many courses have ridden the Championship coat tails while never hosting a championship. In my lifetime I have seen the slow degradation of the term to go from proper, real championships to second rate events marketed as championships to simply equating to a minimum yardage...heavy sigh.  I spose its to be expected when links is meant to equal to an open course.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I wonder how many courses have ridden the Championship coat tails while never hosting a championship. In my lifetime I have seen the slow degradation of the term to go from proper, real championships to second rate events marketed as championships to simply equating to a minimum yardage...heavy sigh.  I spose its to be expected when links is meant to equal to an open course.

Ciao

I remember David Williams telling a story of how to define a “championship” course.


“Any course that has held a regional or national tournament or any course built after 1980” was the way he put it

[Jeff_Brauer]

Meaning having held a tournament since 1980, or having the course built after 1980?


But agree with the basic definition.  Lots of courses that held tourneys back in 1922 or something are nothing special now.  I agree with Sean A - restrict the championship label somehow, reserve it for Tour level or similar courses.  Tour will probably want to get paid to slap TPC at XXX on every course that they play on, but it would distinguish those courses.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Meaning any course built since 1980. It was a joke.

[Peter Pallotta]

Btw, isn't it true that as a golf course gets either very long or very wide it gives the better player an exponentially increasing advantage over the lesser player? And don't both length and width become at some point architecturally self-defeating? Especially given today's driver & ball technology: what do ideal approach angles and risk-reward options and clever green contours and fierce hazards mean when, having freed up the long hitter to fire away off the tee with abandon (in the name of playability for all), those better players are then left with only high-flying short irons & wedges into those greens? For them, the course's length-width has rendered nearly all of the other architectural elements & challenges moot -- leaving only the poor, average golfers to contend with those same challenges. Isn't good gca supposed to be the other way around?
Peter   

[Jeff Schley]

Mark Twain, maybe? 

Indeed. "if I had more time, I would have written less."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


I agree. It should be the other way around, not 100% of courses, just those that will NEVER, EVER, host a tournament.  The point is, most courses should just ignore that 0.01% of players, and design pretty traditionally for the other level players.  Statistically, ignoring the 1% makes the most sense for the average course.



Design for top ams at most.  Put in features that challenge/reward accuracy,

finesse

and

length, and let everyone compete on the club level for fun.

As to width, I think it was Flynn who said you challenge accuracy first.  Not sure why that wouldn't apply to at least most tee shots.

  I don't think protecting par at the greens is a great idea either.  Why not protect it on long shots, too, for a more well rounded test?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark Twain, maybe? 

Indeed. "if I had more time, I would have written less."

Think he also said it took him a good two weeks to come up with an off the cuff one liner.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()