[Tom_Doak]

I don't mean to pick on Jeff Schley in his post about Australia's courses, because it's hardly the first time I've seen someone do this, but I begin to wonder if anyone actually cares much about design when I read an analysis like this:

• Barnbougle Dunes and Lost Farm were helpful to discuss because they were played on consecutive days and the holes tended to run together in people's minds. Both were deemed outstanding, with 2/3 of the group favoring Dunes over LF. I'm a big C&C fan and as I said almost had LF ahead of the Dunes. Perhaps after being spoiled by King Island ocean views so consistently, the group was disappointed there weren't more ocean view holes. Make no mistake both courses did get Top 100 accolades from everyone certainly, but at this level you are deciding which diamonds are best so best to keep it in perspective.
• [/l][/l]

When we were routing Pacific Dunes - and I'm sure for Bandon Dunes before that - Mr. Keiser kept a tally out loud of how many "ocean holes" there were in the routing.  I thought it was simplistic, but since he wasn't visualizing a finished golf hole the same way I was, it was something to fall back on.  And of course, Mr. Keiser knew his audience, and looking at the ocean was a very big factor in how much they would like the course.


I just find it dispiriting that even after all the work to build them, and the creation of a lot of great golf holes, the analysis of three great courses comes right back to "how many ocean view holes" each course had, with very little mention of which of them the observer found compelling.

To be sure, building golf holes beside the ocean is a huge head start in most cases.  You're probably going to have wind, and you're probably going to have interesting contour, and it's probably not going to be 100+ degrees; and all of those factors might be more important to the golf than the view. 

Pine Valley has no "ocean holes", and neither does The Old Course at St. Andrews.  Or Sand Hills.  Discussion of them usually revolves around great golf holes.  But when you're by the ocean, it seems like that's all a lot of people see. 
[/list]

[Mike Bodo]

These are great observations, Tom and I share your angst. One way to look at it is if said hole didn't have the ocean or large body of water adjacent to it, would it still be a great or compelling golf hole? Obviously, where you have a hole such as the 16th at Cypress or the 8th at Pebble where the water comes directly into play and you are forced to carry it, that's part of what makes those holes great. However, when I think of the some of the holes that run along Lake Michigan at Whistling Straits would they be as interesting to me were the lake not present? Probably not. Therein lies the dichotomy.

[Rees Milikin]

It’s all about the atmosphere

[Thomas Dai]

I also had a similar reaction when I read the comments in the thread referenced.
Views regrettably, do play a huge part in how many/most folks perceive golf courses, in some ways it's a bit like an extension of on-course 'eye-candy' features. And of course they look good in publicity photographs, video, TV etc.
I've said it before herein that there are many highly regarded courses, especially links courses, that wouldn't be so highly regarded if they had a 100 ft screen all the way around the perimeter, and particularly in relation to links courses, if such a screen was on the seaward/beach side. It doesn't have to be a 100ft high screen though, it could be an oil refinery or a chemical plant or the like.
Disillusioning, and they have my sympathy, as it may be for those designing and building and maintaining courses and seeking the maximum golf impact rather than the maximum view impact, I can unfortunately understand why developers, especially resort or destination developers, wish to maximise the views even if such negatively impacts the quality of the golf itself.
atb

[Matthew Petersen]

The view is really all that, say, 13 at Pebble Beach has to recommend it. It doesn't play by the water. It's a pretty nothing hole. But the view is still great.


I think this is part of why PB gets away with having  some pretty mediocre holes (most of the holes that don't play along the ocean). 1 is really the only hole without any ocean view at all, and it's the first so everyone kind of forgives it as the warm up. 2 doesn't have much but you kind of get a peek, then once you make the turn onto the fairway on 3 you have pretty great views the rest of the way (except briefly on 15 fairway).


So you have a warm up stretch of holes, then a sustained run of brilliant and beautiful holes, and then a run of holes that aren't much, but are still very pretty and you can just kind of stand on the hillside and take in the views and reflect on the great run of golf you just played, and get geared up for 17/18.


If those holes lacked views due to dunes or trees or homes, I think more people would be much less forgiving of how mediocre those holes are.

[Brett Hochstein]

This did jump out to me a little as well. 


The first comparison I thought of was Old MacDonald vs. Pacific Dunes.  I admittedly need another go around of Pac Dunes, as my lone round there was a rushed one before the first scheduled tee times.  No one would argue the aesthetic experience between the OM and PD, but I thought the golf at Old Mac held up really well in comparison.  Maybe I'm just a sucker for playing along the ground though 


Interestingly, I was told one of the design goals at Castle Stuart was to get away from having water views at every point, which was a change from Kingsbarns, which has water views everywhere unless you hit a very, very bad shot.  I like the CS, give-and-take approach better.  The loss and subsequent regaining of the view makes you appreciate it more.  When it is always there, you tend to either get spoiled and/or forget about it.

[Michael Dugger]

I feel like said review was partially a function of not enough time and effort available to really do a thorough, proper assessment. 


So take it with a grain of salt.  Getting into the nitty gritty details of design takes a lot of observation, numerous plays, etc.  Something we all know simply isn't possible via one play.


Therefore, when choosing or forced to reach conclusions and put forth positions based upon one play, it stands to reason the number of ocean view, amount of great shots hit, flavor of the hot dog at the turn or attractiveness of the cart gal push the verdict in one or the other direction dependent upon somewhat arbitrary criteria. 

[Paul OConnor]

Newquay Golf Club has 18 holes with ocean views, still not in anyone's top anything list. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Is it fair to suggest that for most golfers it's not actually about the golf at all?
Is it wrong to conclude that few separate the setting from the course, let alone the course from the architecture?
Is it churlish to ask how Mr K's tally of ocean holes aligns with the 'golf as it was meant to be played' branding?
Is it cynical to conclude that we obviously judge 'great routings' one way in theory (on here) but a completely different way in practice (out there)?
Is it timely to propose that all those who have ever criticized Mr Nicklaus' design acumen and top-flight skills as a resort course router go find him and apologize?
Is it humility to realize that in the land of the blind (us) the one eyed jack (them) is king?

[Ally Mcintosh]

The loss and subsequent regaining of the view makes you appreciate it more.  When it is always there, you tend to either get spoiled and/or forget about it.

This is a very important point. Even if I was given a property where 18 ocean view holes were available, I’d do everything in my power to ensure that I got away from the ocean and then returned.... It’s about a varying adventure, quality of golf holes aside.

[Terry Lavin]

Most of us are lazy, so we are quickly seduced by the ocean view, to the detriment of the inland holes. Speaking for myself, this is a first and second trip phenomenon. On my subsequent trips to Bandon and Pebble (for example), I’ve always revelled in what I’d failed to notice on the less visually spectacular holes.

[Ira Fishman]

It comes back, as it has on many threads, as to what criteria one is using.  If we are talking about the quality of the architecture--strategic options, routing, green sites and contours, etc--Ocean Views should not be relevant.  If we are talking about the enjoyment of the overall experience, beauty certainly has its impact. 


I never go outside for more than an hour except when I play golf and do not do sightseeing in scenic areas so Ocean Views have less impact on me I think in evaluating golf courses, but my limitations as a human being generally should not be imposed on others.


Ira

[Jim_Kennedy]

You probably know the most of great holes in the world. I suspect that only a handful (if that) of their number would be considered less good if you plopped them down along the seaside. Along with the views, adding the elements that you mentioned, wind/terrain/temperature, could only be considered a plus. As Terry said, sooner or later folks will 'see' the whole course.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


At the heart of what makes St Andrews Beach so great is the golf shots one plays, not the views or aesthetics.


Glad I didn’t look at Google Earth before playing the course.


Being close but never seeing the ocean worked just fine, IMO.

[Peter Pallotta]

But that's the question, isn't it Jim?
What does all the talk about 'great holes' mean  -- architectural speaking -- when there is such a clear preference for/bias towards ocean-side golf holes as great?
P

[James Brown]

Of course ocean views are a legit element to consider.  Anyone who plays golf understands the connect between the game and the seaside on some level.  Many more casual and less GCA conscious golfers make judgements on aesthetics alone and judge courses based on how they played that day - and that is fine for what it’s worth.  I think the value premium placed on golf holes by the ocean parallels the value of real estate on the ocean in general. 


This perception is part of us being multiple amphibians, as Shivas would say.

[Brett Wiesley]

For me a lot of comes down to Ocean View vs. Ocean Front - much like rooms at a beach resort.


Then it's what you did with the opportunity.  Courses with frequent visitation of the coastline, with ocean backdrops off greens, then your back to the ocean on the next tee are more for the view than the strategy.  When a designer has the opportunity to use coastline for the length of a hole - this is the moment where greatness can be achieved.  Bandon Dunes may be the piece of property in the modern era with the greatest opportunity given the vast coastline.  I think PC utilized this opportunity best with #4, #10, #11, and #13 essentially on the coastline and in play.  BD however, has many greens on the coastal horizon, but only #16 along the coast and in play.


Views are everything!!  I'm mesmerized by the ocean, but can equally stare off into mountain views and inland dunes.  Sand Hills and Ballyneal may be two of the most beautiful and complete courses I've every seen, and they have zero water views or water hazards.

[Christian Newton]

Tom,

Interesting question. To me, ocean exposure is atmosphere. It brings depth, scope, and a sense of adventure to a round. I've played Pacific 16 times now and I think it's a great example of using that atmosphere to amplify the experience: both when you see (and hear) ocean and when you don't. The holes that play through the hollows and trees closer to the clubhouse are sheltered and quiet. The holes that border the palisade to the ocean are exposed and loud. And the transitions seem thoughtful, especially the march from the no. 3 tee down through the gorse and out to the fairway--right at the moment when you first see the coastline, if memory serves.

So what does the atmosphere count for? Let me compare No. 4 on PD with No. 2 on Talking Stick North. Pacific has an ocean edge to contend with, if not on the tee shot, then on the approach. Talking Stick has an OB wire fence, with an analogous challenge: when to take on the risk. The strategy is essentially the same--but the atmosphere materially different. I imagine the psychological response of players is too.

But atmosphere can be abused! I think of it like dynamic range in music: in the most talented hands, a combination of contrasting loud and quiet passages creates the best effect. In music recording, this hasn't stopped people from joining an arms race to deliver loudness at all costs. (The New York Times just published an interesting piece of the trend: https://nyti.ms/2DLmoHh.)

Do people over-value the "loudness" of ocean views? Surely they do--perhaps to their own detriment. As evidence I submit this marketing copy from the website for Trump National Los Angeles:

"Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles offers stunning views of the Pacific Ocean from every hole of our award winning, luxury public course."

Cheers,
Christian

[Tom_Doak]

Of course ocean views are a legit element to consider.  Anyone who plays golf understands the connect between the game and the seaside on some level.  Many more casual and less GCA conscious golfers make judgements on aesthetics alone and judge courses based on how they played that day - and that is fine for what it’s worth.  I think the value premium placed on golf holes by the ocean parallels the value of real estate on the ocean in general. 

I never suggested they weren't a legitimate element to consider, or part of the equation.  I am concerned that they seem to be the whole equation, and that people discount or devalue the strategy of the golf holes they are playing when they have an ocean view.

[Tom_Doak]

So what does the atmosphere count for? Let me compare No. 4 on PD with No. 2 on Talking Stick North. Pacific has an ocean edge to contend with, if not on the tee shot, then on the approach. Talking Stick has an OB wire fence, with an analogous challenge: when to take on the risk. The strategy is essentially the same--but the atmosphere materially different. I imagine the psychological response of players is too.

Christian:


That's a very good example, using two holes I really admire.


The 2nd at Talking Stick has been lauded by many posters here [including myself].  The strategy is pretty simple; I think the reason for the accolades has more to do with the fact that the land appears flat and boring.  The real genius was in making the desert out of bounds . . . if you were just playing a recovery shot out of the desert scrub, the hole would be not much different than a lot of other golf holes in Arizona.


The 4th at Pacific Dunes is always talked about in the context of being next to the ocean.  I can't recall anyone ever remarking that the land is pretty flat there, or that it was genius to put the green right on the cliff edge . . . though there have been a few comments that I'm a lucky s.o.b. to be able to build right on the edge of the ocean.  Very few people have ever bothered to notice that the strategy of the hole is pretty much the same as at Talking Stick [though the latter is a par 5 instead of a long par 4].


In one discussion years ago, someone asked if Pacific Dunes would be rated so highly if you discounted the ocean view entirely.  Of course, you can't:  the course, and this hole in particular, was designed with the ocean as an integral part of it.  I suppose you could compare the 4th to any of those tournament finishing holes along a pond, but I would most likely not have built it anywhere near the same if there was just a pond there, instead of the Pacific Ocean.


If you put it to 100 of Jeff Schley's friends, 95 of them would prefer the hole at Pacific Dunes, because of the "atmosphere" as you put it.  We all know that bias is there.  But by the same token it seems they are LESS likely to note the strategy of the hole, or any other golfing reason why they like it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

But that's the question, isn't it Jim?
What does all the talk about 'great holes' mean  -- architectural speaking -- when there is such a clear preference for/bias towards ocean-side golf holes as great?
P

Take any 'great' inland hole and lay it along the sea - it will remain as great as it was when it was landlocked, and it might be viewed as even better due to the extra exposures.   Yet, when you look at the courses that perennially occupy the top 20 spots on 'best' lists, it's skewed toward inland rather than seaside. My feeling - over time the substance of the architecture will win out over the more dramatic location, or, Miss Universe is not always decided by the swimsuit competition.

[Ian Andrew]

Newquay Golf Club has 18 holes with ocean views, still not in anyone's top anything list.

Most golfers I know who have played in the UK (strangely) love Royal Birkdale over the other links.
I've been scratching my head to remember if there's a single ocean view on any hole.
I don't remember one.

Carnoustie is the same ... there are quite a few links like that.

The Ocean can be the last touch that takes a course past its equal in another setting.
But I'm still drawn to Prairie Dunes, Pine Valley and Merion (architecture) over Pebble Beach (exceptional setting).

So no, I don't agree.

[Mike Bodo]

But that's the question, isn't it Jim?
What does all the talk about 'great holes' mean  -- architectural speaking -- when there is such a clear preference for/bias towards ocean-side golf holes as great?
P

Take any 'great' inland hole and lay it along the sea - it will remain as great as it was when it was landlocked, and it might be viewed as even better due to the extra exposures.   Yet, when you look at the courses that perennially occupy the top 20 spots on 'best' lists, it's skewed toward inland rather than seaside. My feeling - over time the substance of the architecture will win out over the more dramatic location, or, Miss Universe is not always decided by the swimsuit competition.

This is an interesting perspective, because if I go back to my example of Whistling Straits, I actually find many of the holes on the Irish course more interesting and compelling from a design standpoint than the Straits course. The elevation changes alone make the course more appealing to me. Problem is it's the inland course of the two and thus it will always play second fiddle to the Straits course. If you could take the holes on the Irish and plop them down next to Lake Michigan it wouldn't even be a contest to me which course was considered better architecturally speaking.

[mike_beene]

While beautiful, the ocean is just a way to make OB a lateral hazard?

[Peter Flory]

The further down the chain from architectural connoisseur to retail golfer, the more that the peripheral aesthetics will matter.  Some people are there to play golf and some are there to have a nice walk, so that makes sense. 


However, I think that it is important to separate that a golfer can find the architecture interesting because of the interplay with the shore and the unique hazard of the Ocean/ beach/ buffer zone.  In many cases, it isn't just the view, it is that there is a massive hazard that you have to flirt with throughout the hole.  16 at BD comes to mind.  The beauty is overwhelming, but it is also a really fun strategy hole because of the bordering hazard (and a diagonal hazard jutting in). 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()