GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!

[Garland Bayley]

In order to consider the relevancy of Hunter's book, it seems to me you have to define what is relevant or irrelevant today.

1. Links land available for development is exceedingly rare. What he cherishes is just not available. Even nonlinks, better land for golf courses is in limited supply, especially near population centers.

2. Equipment development has made a great disparity between what the top golfers can do, and what the average golfer can. The best equipment is mostly taken advantage of by the best players. Even among average golfers the disparity is growing.

3. Golf carts let 90 year olds continue to play the game.

4. There is a strong desire or need to get more women playing the game.

5. IMO building the trend of building many sets of tees to accommodate a large disparity in players is a losing strategy.

You may ask, who is addressing this? Perhaps Mike Nuzzo is.

Tom
I thought you had seen a course with that approach?
See below

Jason
I wrote an essay about ideal yardages in the soon to be released Golf Architecture Volume 6 compiled by Paul Daley
Here is a sneak peek:

Wolf Point:
*these yardages are theoretical - you still play from where you want

Let us consider how the yardages at Wolf Point would translate to par for the USGA scratch and bogey golfers.
   Scratch Male Par/Approach     Scratch Female Par/Approach  Bogey Male Par/Approach    Bogey Female Par/Approach
139                 3/139                                                3/139                                       3/139                                            3/139
168                 3 /168                                               3 /168                                      3 /168                                           4/18
192                 3/192                                                3 /192                                      3 /192                                           4/42
220                 3/220                                                4/10                                         4/20                                               4/70
271                 4/21                                                  4/61                                         4/71                                               4/121
282                 4/32                                                  4/72                                         4/82                                               5/2
331                 4/81                                                  4/121                                       4/131                                             5/51
341                 4/91                                                  4/131                                       4/141                                             5/61
359                 4/109                                                4/149                                       4/159                                             5/79
384                 4/134                                                4/174                                       5/14                                               5/104
399                 4/149                                                4/189                                       5/29                                               5/119
423                 4/173                                                5/23                                         5/53                                               6/13
434                 4/184                                                5/34                                         5/64                                               6/24
444                 4/194                                                5/44                                         5/74                                               6/34
485                 5/15                                                  5/85                                         5/115                                             6/75
521                 5/51                                                  5/121                                       5/151                                             6/111
541                 5/71                                                  5/141                                       6/1                                                 7/1
584                 5/114                                                5/184                                       6/44                                               7/44
                      72                                                      76                                             80                                                  93

Let us suggest that birdie holes could be holes that have an approach shot of 1/2 of the maximum approach shot achievable by the individual type of player. That is for male scratch golfers 220/2=110, for female scratch golfers 190/2=95, for male bogey golfers 170/2=135, and for female bogey golfers 130/2=65. This determines that for male scratch golfers there are 8 birdie holes, for female scratch golfers there are 7 birdie holes, for male bogey golfers there are 12 birdies holes, and for female bogey golfers there are 7 birdie holes.

The spike at 12 birdie holes for the male bogey golfer originates in the length of the holes being skewed a little from uniform to be more standard in relation to the building of golf holes.

Tom Doak has made a proposal that would not have such skewing.

Jason:

For the Rio project I proposed building holes in 30-meter increments, starting from 140m as follows:

Par-3's at 130, 160, 190, 220, 250 m

Par-4's at 280, 310, 340, 370, 400, 430, 460, and 490 m

Par-5's at 520, 550, 580, 610 and 640 m

I think that added up to 7290 m.  The numbers on the par-5's seem shockingly long, but, those are what it would take to stop Tour pros from playing them all like par-4 holes.

However, we did not intend to have the course be that long all the time.  The other part of our proposal was to move the tees around in 10m increments each day, including having one day where the men played the women's yardage, and one day where the women played the men's.  The purpose of that would be to determine how much difference the total length really makes.  I'm not convinced it makes all that much difference.  For example, if you move up everything 30m from the numbers above, all you've done is exchanged the 640m hole for a 100m hole at the other end of the spectrum ... so you have taken 540m off the total yardage, and reduced par by two shots, exchanging a par-5 for a par-3.  Looked at in that light, all these silly renovations of courses for major championships are probably adding less than 0.5 strokes to the overall difficulty of the course.

I would refer you to the thread at
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55136.msg1276937.html#msg1276937
to learn where I am coming from.

I will be back with more commentary on Hunter's book.

[Garland Bayley]

Last paragraph of Chapter IV, "Is it not a fact that the more difficult our golf courses become the more numerous and intense are the devotees?"

NO, it is not. Hunter is irrelevant.

My experience, for the most part, supports Hunter.  As a starter at Ohio State's Scarlet and Grey Club, there could be a two hour walk-up list on Scarlet  while the Grey would be wide open, and the putting greens would be packed with pestering golfers of all skill levels waiting for their names to be called.  The Grey was a pleasant course right around 6000 yards and far more suitable for many of the golfers who would instead spend 5+ hours and 100+ strokes on the Scarlet.


One of the most popular member's course in north Texas is hard as nails.  When officiating high level qualifiers, I spend a lot of time between #1 and #10 trying to spot tee shots headed into the knee and waist high fescue.  The members love the place, and don't suggest making the course more playable unless you want a heated argument.

...

So are you an advocate of returning to what has been characterized as the "dark ages" of golf course architecture? That penal golf is really what is popular? That we are losing golfers because this new generation of golf architects have concentrated on strategy rather than penalty?

[Garland Bayley]

In Chapter V, Hunter advocates punishing with hazards topped approach shots, topped drives, and long pulls and slices. In the previous chapters, he often advocated for top shot bunkers. He does this while stating "It is better not to punish the majority of bad shots as they are in themselves sufficient punishment." I get cognitive dissonance from such statements. Will not hazards specifically punishing some bad shots you want to punish, often punish bad shots they were not designed to punish, punish weaker players when they get in the way of their plodding way to the hole, and punish superior players when they get in the way of their speedy way to the hole?

Punishing this assortment of bad shots is not relevant now given that vast array of golf participants that are involved in the game as alluded to in my post above.

He of course makes good recommendations on the placement of strategic hazards, but concentrates on those that affect the superior player. If it is good to make the superior player think, is it not also good to make lessor players think. Perhaps make hazards for superior players more difficult to obtain a minimal score, but allow lessor players obtain an appropriate score. A steep face guards against going right at the hole while minimal faces on the sides of the hazard allow the lessor players to still play in accordance with their abilities.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

I'm a bit surprised as a High Capper yourself you're falling for that trap.  Reality is most players are subject to the golf equivalent of "Even thou I had the right to remain to silent....I lacked the ability".

As much as most players would like to play the angles and preferred lines, more often that not its "hit and hope" that the ball finds some piece of the fairway or green and stays out of the nasty stuff.

[David Harshbarger]

In the previous chapters, he often advocated for top shot bunkers. He does this while stating "It is better not to punish the majority of bad shots as they are in themselves sufficient punishment." I get cognitive dissonance from such statements. Will not hazards specifically punishing some bad shots you want to punish, often punish bad shots they were not designed to punish, punish weaker players when they get in the way of their plodding way to the hole, and punish superior players when they get in the way of their speedy way to the hole?

Hunter said IIRC that topped-shot bunkers have a role in those situations where a bounding topped-shot might actually get a better outcome than a well-struck and well-meant play. 


I've seen them used to good effect, one I'm thinking of in particular at Dev Emmet's Edison Club.  A medium length par-3, there's a topped-shot bunker at about 100 yards.  It serves two purposes: to catch poorly struck bounders, but also to camouflage the distance to the hole.  The hole covers level land, so the bunker is built such that from the tee, the green surface is just visible above the bunker's lip.  Of course the 40 yards of fairway between the bunker and the green are hidden :-)


I take Hunter's position on a topped-shot bunker off the tee on a long par-5 would be different.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I'm a bit surprised as a High Capper yourself you're falling for that trap.  Reality is most players are subject to the golf equivalent of "Even thou I had the right to remain to silent....I lacked the ability".

As much as most players would like to play the angles and preferred lines, more often that not its "hit and hope" that the ball finds some piece of the fairway or green and stays out of the nasty stuff.

You are going to have to be more specific for me to understand your post.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

Is the player hitting topped shots really worth penalizing? Sounds more like sour grapes from a low capper that lost a match to a high capper because he lucked one onto the green.

Someone who is topping the ball should be welcomed into the game and encouraged to improve his skills, and not discouraged by avoidable design decisions.

[David Harshbarger]

David,

Is the player hitting topped shots really worth penalizing? Sounds more like sour grapes from a low capper that lost a match to a high capper because he lucked one onto the green.

Someone who is topping the ball should be welcomed into the game and encouraged to improve his skills, and not discouraged by avoidable design decisions.

Garland,


I'm paraphrasing Hunter.  In his opinion, the topped-shot bunker makes sense. He makes the case for "punishing all offenders" in the first paragraph of chapter V.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

I'm a bit surprised as a High Capper yourself you're falling for that trap.  Reality is most players are subject to the golf equivalent of "Even thou I had the right to remain to silent....I lacked the ability".

As much as most players would like to play the angles and preferred lines, more often that not its "hit and hope" that the ball finds some piece of the fairway or green and stays out of the nasty stuff.

You are going to have to be more specific for me to understand your post.

From post #27, when you said:

"He of course makes good recommendations on the placement of strategic hazards, but concentrates on those that affect the superior player. "

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

I guess I'm being dense, but can you lay out your point or points in detail?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

I guess I'm being dense, but can you lay out your point or points in detail?

Garland,

Its simple really.  Why should a designer go to all the hassle of designing specific features, bunker placement, etc...on behalf of the massive majority who can do little in way of carrying out a strategic strategy.  Yes they can process it, yes they can say I'm going to try to hit it here, but at the end of the day the inability to execute most of the time renders it moot.  Much less you should also know that HC's have such a wide variance on what kinds of shots they can execute better vs what they can't.  (Driver, woods, long irons, short iron, short game, putting, etc)

So making the macro strategy decisions for the player who can control their shots most of the time seems to be the correct decision, and the designer then puts their other efforts into deciding where the tee box should be placed for the lesser player to start.

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

Some high handicappers are very accurate. Don't confuse your and my games with that of the general golfing public. On occasion, I play with other seniors that but for their declining distance would be scratch. If I remember Dr. Knuth's statements correctly, the accurate short hitting high handicappers out number us "Wild Willys" (his term).

Apparently you missed the implications of my stance. There are no other tee boxes to be designed.

[Garland Bayley]

...Near the end of the book, he offers thoughts that match up with some of today's more revolutionary thinking.
Do not let certain standards become an obsession. Quality, not length; interest, not the number of holes; distinction, not size in the greens - these things are worth striving for.

Have to agree with you on that.

For me, though, this is maybe the most important thing in the book:
The charm of the seaside courses of Great Britain lies in their multiformity, their unconventionality, their infinite variety.

Have to disagree with you on that. Being a limited resource, links land is becoming irrelevant. The only way I currently see it becoming relevant again would be to generate links like landscapes using fractal geometry, have an unexhaustible source of sand, built the generated landscape, and then show it to a talented GCA.
Wonder what Hunter would make of the homogenization movement?

[Tom_Doak]

In his list of "American courses of the first class" on p. 41 Hunter doesn't list Pinehurst #2 or Chicago Golf -- is their omission intentional?

Chicago Golf was an outdated 1890's golf course just being renovated by Raynor.


Pinehurst #2 still had sand greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Over on the thread on the Biarritz, Tom D made a comment that someday he'd like to build the 85 foot up-hill par 3 as shown in the accompanying photos:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg1626505.html#msg1626505




In "The Links" Hunter argues that while golfers will accept such a hole if nature puts it there, they will react angrily if it's seen as man-made.  One way to interpret that as long as nature is responsible for piling the land up in whatever way, players will accept all kinds of crazy holes that follow that land. 


I find this a fascinating point. One one hand, golf courses are obviously the work of man.  Golf is contrived. Man chooses to put flags in the ground, make sure certain ground is maintained, etc.  But that's not seen as problematic, as though the existence of golf over some problematic ground is axiomatic even if the resulting holes are extreme to the point of absurdity.


What's seen as problematic is if man over-reaches in creating problematic ground. Ground that would be accepted for golf sans the hand of man is problematic if it seems contrived.  In that sense, two identical holes, one situated such that it seems natural, and the other that it seems man-made would evoke diametrical responses from players.


Is this in fact true?  If so I would think it very relevant to the modern architect in defining the boundaries of the possible on any given property.

 It has always been that way.  It's the reason there is a double standard between Golden Age courses and new ones:  on the older courses, the designer's agency has been grandfathered into being accepted as natural, whereas that is rarely the case when we know that Designer X just built a new course.  Minimalists may be granted some more license than others, but golfers understand that everything we have done was a choice.

The uphill par-3 I mentioned at Biarritz was accepted in its day because you had to get back up that hill to finish the course and in 1895 a golfer expected to play up it, instead of taking a golf cart to the top.  It would be a tougher sell now, but that's why I would want to do it, to get golfers to understand that the game is a trek along which one plays golf shots.

I have never thought about it in this way, but with the exception of flat-site projects like The Legends or The Rawls Course where every difficulty must be created, I have rarely done any earthwork with the purpose of making a hole harder.  Instead, I am routing a hole over wild terrain and softening it just enough to be playable, while keeping its wild character.  And when I have made an exception to this rule, those holes have been my most controversial.  [I'm thinking of the 4th at Lost Dunes; that green site was flat originally.]

[Thomas Dai]

As to relevancy, to me the relevancy revolves around making the reader think, especially within a subject like golf architecture which can be pretty subjective. The writer may make a statement that the reader disagrees with or even doesn’t really understand but if the writers statement assists the reader in thinking about and exploring the issue further then it’s been helpful. And then there’s the historical element, I did it like this because .....
Atb

[Sean_A]

...Near the end of the book, he offers thoughts that match up with some of today's more revolutionary thinking.
Do not let certain standards become an obsession. Quality, not length; interest, not the number of holes; distinction, not size in the greens - these things are worth striving for.

Have to agree with you on that.

For me, though, this is maybe the most important thing in the book:
The charm of the seaside courses of Great Britain lies in their multiformity, their unconventionality, their infinite variety.

Have to disagree with you on that. Being a limited resource, links land is becoming irrelevant. The only way I currently see it becoming relevant again would be to generate links like landscapes using fractal geometry, have an unexhaustible source of sand, built the generated landscape, and then show it to a talented GCA.
Wonder what Hunter would make of the homogenization movement?

I am not sure I follow the logic.  Because linksland is a finite landform it is no longer relevant?  It seems to me that most of the best courses built in the past 25 years are on sand.  If anything, I would say there has been a full realization of the importance of sand in architecture. Some archies must have cringed when they looked back at what they built in the 80s etc when compared to what came later.

Tucky

I agree with you in the homogenization/codification are not trends that Hunter would have approved.  That said, it can be argued that a major premise of golden age architecture was homogenization/codification.  Perhaps Hunter didn't see his work in such a light?  I suspect when one is involved with a "movement", the results cannot be known for some time.

Ciao 

[Dave Maberry]

Thanks for organizing the BC over the Winter months. I enjoyed re-reading a book I had not looked at in awhile.


I have the Flagstick reprint and found the Preface by Bill Coore timely with the recent passing of Pete Dye. Bill was introduced to The Links by Pete.



I think the book remains relevant based on similar discussions and issues remaining today.


I do think tournament golf has become less interesting based on how far the ball goes. It is a game that I find hard to comprehend. 


Finally can anyone provide more information about Mayfield Golf Course shown on page 6 and listed in table on page 41? Where was it and is it a NLE?

[Tim Gallant]

David,
I think it is true - at least it's true to my experience.
Avoiding at least some of the inflated language Hunter (and, as Colin notes, Behr) sometimes used, I'd put it this way:
When we arrive at a dramatic golf hole characterized by natural (or natural-seeming) terrain, with all its inherent challenge/quirk, we accept it as an inevitable -- and with some gratitude for the architect's skill in finding a golf hole here for us to play.
But when we arrive at a dramatic looking golf hole, and -- in taking in the broader topography -- our eyes tells us that there is nothing natural in the terrain and thus nothing inherent in the challenge/quirk, but only a man-made construct, we can't accept it as inevitable nor can we necessarily appreciate the architect's skill, since we don't know what other (or many other) kinds of golf holes could've been built there instead.
So: should we then fail at the former, we feel that we can only blame ourselves: the golf hole was as Nature intended it, and we simply didn't have the skill to play it properly.
But should we then fail at the latter, we know darn well who we can blame, i.e. the architect -- the golf hole was the way not Nature but the architect intended it, and we feel he/she should've known better and not designed a golf hole that our skill couldn't successfully tackle.   

Peter,


Lovely point. Hunter states:
 

• In the preface (xvi), Hunter says: ‘Proportion, symmetry, and uniformity are carefully worked out in the designs, and when the finished product appears it so blends itself with the surrounding landscape that few can tell where nature ends and art begins’. I agree that architects should always strive to mould holes that marry in with their natural surrounding, thus taking on the unique characteristics of the place, which gives it a sense of individuality.

As you point out, it's not that people object with man being involved (all courses have human intervention in some form as others have pointed out). What makes people turn on an architect is if it seems unnatural, and therefore, they believe that the architect is out to punish/trick/deceive them!


Reading The Architectural Side of Golf, there is a theory of Attack and defence, where the architect is locked in a battle to defend against certain outcomes, but must do so in a sly way.

[Tim Gallant]

...Near the end of the book, he offers thoughts that match up with some of today's more revolutionary thinking.
Do not let certain standards become an obsession. Quality, not length; interest, not the number of holes; distinction, not size in the greens - these things are worth striving for.

Have to agree with you on that.

For me, though, this is maybe the most important thing in the book:
The charm of the seaside courses of Great Britain lies in their multiformity, their unconventionality, their infinite variety.

Have to disagree with you on that. Being a limited resource, links land is becoming irrelevant. The only way I currently see it becoming relevant again would be to generate links like landscapes using fractal geometry, have an unexhaustible source of sand, built the generated landscape, and then show it to a talented GCA.
Wonder what Hunter would make of the homogenization movement?

I am not sure I follow the logic.  Because linksland is a finite landform it is no longer relevant?  It seems to me that most of the best courses built in the past 25 years are on sand.  If anything, I would say there has been a full realization of the importance of sand in architecture. Some archies must have cringed when they looked back at what they built in the 80s etc when compared to what came later.

I'd also add that is it not true that almost all aspiring architects come to links land to study / take inspiration? Surely that means their variety, multiformity is still relevant!

[Tim Gallant]

Lovely start to the discussion! Some very interesting discussions and points!


Let's hear from the rest that responded to the initial thread! What did you like? Dislike? What was confusing? Inspiring? (Looking at you David Jones, Ian Galbraith, David Davis, Frank Sekulic, Enno Gerdes, Mile Malone, Jason Hines, James Boon, Chris Mavros, Lov Goel, Jeff Warne and all others!).


As a side, would Hunter be happy with the standard of courses being built around the world now?

[Tom_Doak]

Finally can anyone provide more information about Mayfield Golf Course shown on page 6 and listed in table on page 41? Where was it and is it a NLE?

Mayfield is in the suburbs of Cleveland.  It's still there, and it's still like that, and under the radar because it's short and quirky.  It's a real hidden gem.


The club almost went under in the recession, but they merged with the modern Sand Ridge GC, and to date it has worked out well for both courses.

[Garland Bayley]

I'd also add that is it not true that almost all aspiring architects come to links land to study / take inspiration? Surely that means their variety, multiformity is still relevant!

Good point Tim.

[John Mayhugh]

I agree with you in the homogenization/codification are not trends that Hunter would have approved.  That said, it can be argued that a major premise of golden age architecture was homogenization/codification.  Perhaps Hunter didn't see his work in such a light?  I suspect when one is involved with a "movement", the results cannot be known for some time.

This is a fair point, though the golden age seemed to be focused less more on function and less on aesthetics than the homogenization of today. Or maybe I'm wrong.

[Lou_Duran]

Last paragraph of Chapter IV, "Is it not a fact that the more difficult our golf courses become the more numerous and intense are the devotees?"

NO, it is not. Hunter is irrelevant.

My experience, for the most part, supports Hunter.  As a starter at Ohio State's Scarlet and Grey Club, there could be a two hour walk-up list on Scarlet  while the Grey would be wide open, and the putting greens would be packed with pestering golfers of all skill levels waiting for their names to be called.  The Grey was a pleasant course right around 6000 yards and far more suitable for many of the golfers who would instead spend 5+ hours and 100+ strokes on the Scarlet.


One of the most popular member's course in north Texas is hard as nails.  When officiating high level qualifiers, I spend a lot of time between #1 and #10 trying to spot tee shots headed into the knee and waist high fescue.  The members love the place, and don't suggest making the course more playable unless you want a heated argument.

...

So are you an advocate of returning to what has been characterized as the "dark ages" of golf course architecture? That penal golf is really what is popular? That we are losing golfers because this new generation of golf architects have concentrated on strategy rather than penalty?

GB,


I am not advocating anything.  Mine was an observation based on 50 years of considerable experience, i.e. that Hunter was probably correct in his view regarding difficult courses and more intense "devotees".


Also, there is a marked difference between difficult and penal- for most of us, all penal courses tend to be difficult.  I can think of a number of difficult courses that are not penal: Colonial CC in Fort Worth for one that might be familiar, Firestone CC- South another, Bethpage- Black, Riviera CC, etc.  I admit to enjoying a challenge, but not a thrashing.


As to the loss of golfers, I am not sure that this is happening- could it be that after a period of unusual growth we are just returning to more normal, "natural" numbers (reverting to the mean)?  But if golf is indeed declining, I would posit that it has much, much more to do with demands on our money, i.e. amounts of disposable income after living expenses, taxes, fees, etc., than golf architecture.


Don't believe me if you want, outside of this site, the vast majority of golfers place higher priorities on things other than course design.  You may be surprised how many people don't know who Tom Doak is and don't really care to discuss architecture, "strategy", the WHS, and that the ball goes too far.


But back to Hunter's quote (which I assume is accurate), have you ever heard a golfer say about his course how much he liked it because it was really easy?  I never have.