What was the "design intent"?

[Tom_Doak]

If Ross or any of the other ODG's were alive today would they be building courses with half a dozen tees per hole with 100 plus yards between the front and back tees just so everyone could hit a nominated landing area ? Would they pander to such an idea and would they litter their designs with forced carries or would they design their hazards in such a way so that a rabbit could circumnavigate them with a putter while the tiger goes for glory ?

Sometimes, forced carries are required by wetlands and other obstacles that Ross could have filled in a hundred years ago, but which must be preserved now.  And if they just all came back to life today, they would have to deal with six sets of tees as a "standard" which many people expect.  But I don't believe for a second that it would have become the standard if people like Ross and MacKenzie were still designing courses for all the time in between.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Wow how time flies     19 years ago but I remember it pretty well.  Cool to see that group of guys all chiming in.  Really thoughtful golf architecture discussion. Honestly my position on design intent hasn’t changed too much since that time frame.  Tom Paul, who we all love and respect, says design intent is commonsensical and not rocket science.  Ran believes in certain situations some of the original design intent may have changed which means he must have understood something about what was meant to begin with plus Ran also says we should study some architect’s changes to their courses later in their careers to see how their design intent ideas are changing/or have changed.  But one thing is clear, deciphering design intent is still subjective and we will never know 100% for sure but with some careful and thoughtful study we can fathom some good guesses. Thanks for digging this up.

[mike_malone]

I was looking for the recent thread on this topic but instead the search led me to one from 19 years ago -- started by the same guy!   


I was looking because I read this quote from Donald Ross yesterday in Aleck Bauer's book and it reminded me of the discussion:


     "For instance, they do not lay out a links across the water by rule of thumb with the idea of having the drive such a distance, the second shot such a distance, the approach such a distance and so on, even mentioning clubs that shall be used for each shot.  When he lays out the hole, the constructor casts his eye over the country and gets the idea of what he considers a golf hole in his brain, lays it out that way and then says to the player:  'There's the golf hole, play it any way you please.'  . . . "


     "For the British [theory] surely has the real spirit of golf in it when it says that the way to reach a hole is by using the clubs and by taking the route which will get the player to the green in his own way, which should be better for him than anybody else's way.  So that the golf holes on the best links in Scotland and England have several different ways of playing them and because they do not present just one and the only way to everybody, the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems."




So did Donald Ross really want players to hit a 5-iron into certain greens?  Or is that just projection from people trying to graft their own idea of merit onto his work?




Also -- Mike Malone -- have your ideas changed significantly since your 6/26/2002 post just above Mr. Mucci's?

That sounds like me , Tom. I have evolved more to “ leave it as designed “ for most ideas. For this hole it’s a simple idea—- let the ball roll.

[mike_malone]

Today I would say that we should prioritize what was done originally.


    Routing is of primary importance to me. I think it’s well north of 50% of the original. Green size and shape, trees, bunkers number and placement are probably 10% each. Tees heading in the original direction takes up most of the rest.


So all this talk of diverging from the original comes down to very few things that , for me, aren’t worth the time or money.


This only applies to courses where the original is virtually universally acknowledged as worth preserving.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Your last comment is the tricky one - "This only applies to courses where the original is virtually universally acknowledged as worth preserving.”

There are lots of courses that will never make a Top 100 list but also don't need to be blown up to be a solid design.  Sometimes what was originally there hasn't been well preserved and was a lot better than what has evolved.  You just have to look before blowing things up and maybe sometimes a modest restoration/renovation is a much better and more cost effective solution.
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

What about the old philosophy of keeping what works and improving what doesn't?  Should be applicable to golf design as well.


We have no 99% certain way to know what the design intent is, but we can probably reach a consensus on features that work or not today (whether strategically or technically, i.e., drainage.  Using this approach, it would seem most of us, since we aren't redesigning all the greens in "our style" would try to make whatever changes we recommend blend into the greens (or really, green complexes) that aren't being changed substantially.  Thus, in the end, the goal is a sympathetic renovation/restoration.


It should be the best of both worlds.....but I grant sometimes it is also the worst of both worlds, LOL.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Don't you think that for the vast number of courses the "design intent" is just to make a course playable and pretty for the members and guests?

[Thomas Dai]

Don't you think that for the vast number of courses the "design intent" is just to make a course playable and pretty for the members and guests?

As time has gone bye, playability wise not sure, prettiness wise, more and more so. And maintenance/conditioning wise the requirement and ability to provide prettiness seems to have gone through the roof. Prettiness maybe even at the expense of playability?
Atb