News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« on: November 29, 2021, 03:38:52 PM »
If you're looking for a deep glimpse inside the mind of a golf course architect, watch for Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture, to be published sometime next spring. I finished doing a bit of editing on his manuscript last week, and found his observations illuminating, precise and thought-provoking. He begins by describing the elements of golf course design as Space, Line, Color, Shape, Form and scale, and provides detailed examples of how each element comes into play in a course design.


Some of his other thoughts and observations:


“I always intend to make features look natural or ensure a hazard shall challenge and not penalize. Other aspects of my design philosophy are my affinity for central hazards or my intention to develop a golf hole’s strategy based on the site’s natural landforms.”


“A hazard is to challenge, not penalize.”


“I do not see trees as viable organic design tools in the art of golf architecture.”


“The Principle of Par should simply never be in the forefront of an architect’s mind.”


“I will often create at least one bunkerless green to demonstrate that sand should never be a requisite for good design.”


“Quirk is best discovered and should never be sought out.”


“Artificially raising tee boxes is another example of moving away from the sport’s links roots.”


“Hazards themselves should never be concealed.”


Lots to chew on in this book.




[size=78%] [/size]
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2021, 03:58:20 PM »
Where is the challenge if there is no penalty?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2021, 04:00:25 PM »
Where is the challenge if there is no penalty?


There are many, many bunkers that penalize a bad shot but don't really challenge anybody to do anything other than hit it straight at the hole.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2021, 04:07:40 PM »
Good question and great answer.






I'm interested in the idea of raised tees being antithetical to links golf. Especially when combined with the idea of not concealing hazards.


Sounds like it'll be a good read. Thanks Rick!

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2021, 04:24:21 PM »
To me it is fascinating to read and learn about various architect’s design ideas and philosophies.  I expect it will be an interesting read.  I am sure we all can think of other architect’s that would both agree and/or disagree with each of the quotes but that is what makes GCA special  - soooo many varied playing fields.


I am working on a Loeffler course now and he would laugh at the challenge vs penalize quote for hazards.  You will recall he and Fownes said something about one stroke lost  ;)

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2021, 04:35:20 PM »
Much similarity to Flynn principles.
AKA Mayday

Anthony Gray

Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2021, 04:40:23 PM »
If you're looking for a deep glimpse inside the mind of a golf course architect, watch for Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture, to be published sometime next spring. I finished doing a bit of editing on his manuscript last week, and found his observations illuminating, precise and thought-provoking. He begins by describing the elements of golf course design as Space, Line, Color, Shape, Form and scale, and provides detailed examples of how each element comes into play in a course design.


Some of his other thoughts and observations:


“I always intend to make features look natural or ensure a hazard shall challenge and not penalize. Other aspects of my design philosophy are my affinity for central hazards or my intention to develop a golf hole’s strategy based on the site’s natural landforms.”


“A hazard is to challenge, not penalize.”


“I do not see trees as viable organic design tools in the art of golf architecture.”


“The Principle of Par should simply never be in the forefront of an architect’s mind.”


“I will often create at least one bunkerless green to demonstrate that sand should never be a requisite for good design.”


“Quirk is best discovered and should never be sought out.”


“Artificially raising tee boxes is another example of moving away from the sport’s links roots.”


“Hazards themselves should never be concealed.”


Lots to chew on in this book.




[size=78%] [/
[/size]
[size=78%]


These principles violate a lot of the designs of the old guys. Macdonald’s and mounding hardly ever looked natural. A ball is a hazard is penal. Dye used trees often even putting them inside bunkers. Most golfers judge their rounds based on par. Quirk adds character so it needs to be added. Thinking about how many holes have hidden hazards. Would be a good thread. Most people hate centerline hazards.


Interesting philosophy. Would like to hear more.



[/size]

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2021, 04:43:40 PM »
Mike,
Very true with one notable exception being trees.  As we both know, Flynn never made it across the pond and had a different view of trees and other design aspects then many other architects. 

Richard_Mandell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2021, 05:56:58 PM »
Rick, you got them stirred up!  Of course, the most dangerous thing is to throw a one-liner out there.  The next most dangerous thing is to respond to a one-liner without having any more to go on.  Nonetheless, I'm sure there is a lot in this book many will have a field day with. That is what design is all about.  It is as subjective as it can get.  That said, much of the book is getting to the root of specific design terms and how they actually apply.


Mark, you are right on target when you refer to so many varied playing fields and there are so many varied design approaches as well.  For instance, Loeffler may have a field day with my quote about challenge vs. penalty yet Tom Simpson would surely be in agreement. 


Don, Tom answered your question about penalty and challenge very concisely.  No one ever said there is no penalty associated with a challenge.  But a hazard's sole purpose shouldn't just be penalty (unless you're Fownes and Loeffler and a whole bunch of other designers out there).  Just not me.


By the way, I love Quirk and I'm the first one to consider how much my score may be in relation to par.  But that doesn't mean I design with a certain par in mind.  I'd rather let that happen organically; secondary to the design within the site.  On a similar vein, Quirk shouldn't be manufactured.


On the topic of raising tees artificially, anything artificial could be against the grain of links golf, right?


i better get this thing done soon.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2021, 06:34:05 PM »
 8)


I wonder if Rich would like the bunker on the elbow on 14th at Philly CC




 ;D ::) ;D

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2021, 08:10:14 PM »
8)


I wonder if Rich would like the bunker on the elbow on 14th at Philly CC

One of favorite Flynn bunkers. It’s to be taken on not avoided. Sorry, Archie.



 ;D ::) ;D
AKA Mayday

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2021, 08:28:46 PM »
Richard, Tom,
I get that there are many hazards that only penalize the weak or thoughtless golfer. But that's not what the one line said.
It said hazards are there to challenge, not penalize. So again, if we can brush aside discussing poorly designed hazards for a moment, what makes a hazard challenging if there is no penalty associated with it? I truly do not understand the concept.


Are the hazards at The Old Course poorly designed because there is a penalty associated with them, or are we only talking about hazards that have actually penalty strokes involved like water and OB?

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2021, 08:37:16 PM »
Don,
I agree with you but I think we are both miss-understanding Richard’s quote.  I don’t think he means what you said that his hazards result in no penalty.  If that were the case, then I would argue if they are really hazards in the first place.  You and I are both defining challenge as some form of added difficulty if you end up in the hazard which is effectively a penalty vs avoiding the hazard in the first place.  Again if ending up in the hazard results in no added challenge/penalty then is it a hazard? 
« Last Edit: November 29, 2021, 09:38:53 PM by Mark_Fine »

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2021, 08:45:13 PM »
I'm not defining anything. I like hazards that can be taken on, or avoided. I like hazards that reward if I can make good decisions and execute my desired shot. And I like hazards that sometimes feel like just too much and I can take another route.  But I still don't understand how a hazard can be a hazard if there is no penalty.  I guess I'm looking at it to simply.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2021, 09:10:39 PM »
OMG
I just realized what I've been doing here for the last decade (along with not a few others): trying to find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!!




Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2021, 10:14:32 PM »
I guess we will have to buy the book to see what Richard really means  :D :D

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2021, 10:21:56 PM »
Where is the challenge if there is no penalty?




how about a hazard that is easier to play from than the adjacent rough😰




see Mayday above lol

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2021, 10:45:35 PM »
 Archie,


 Someday we will discuss this in person.
AKA Mayday

Richard_Mandell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2021, 06:42:08 AM »
Mark,


From a publisher's standpoint, I do like the way you think!


Don,


Picture a par four with two bunkers down the left side of the landing area and two bunkers down the right side of the landing area.  the challenge on that hole is to hit it straight down the middle, avoiding the bunkers.  If one fails, then the bunkers penalize the golfer who failed.  There is nothing wrong with that, by the way, other than for the majority of golfers it becomes redundant and provides only one option (hit down the middle) for everyone. Those bunkers serve as nothing but penalty.  The challenge is hit down the middle or avoid the bunkers.


Picture the same hole with a central bunker in the middle.  That hazard challenges the golfer to gain an advantage (and also offers four different ways to play the same hole).  If the golfer fails, then they are penalized by being in the sand. 


So, the four bunkers along the sides of example A penalize the golfer who is trying to keep it in the middle whereas the bunker in example B challenges the golfer to gain an advantage by shortening the hole or offering up a better angle to the pin, etc.  [size=78%]The first example, straight down the middle, does not offer up alternatives.[/size]


Bottom line is that in either case, the hazard will dole out penalty once you are in it.  I would just prefer that one is rewarded for playing over or around it with aggressive play rather than being penalized for failing to hit the only shot possible. 

Richard_Mandell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2021, 07:03:42 AM »
Actually Don, here is what you are getting at:  The placement of a hazard shall challenge, not penalize.  After all these years of preaching, I'll need to get new bumper stickers printed to include those first three words.  Good work, everybody!

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2021, 07:38:08 AM »
 ??? ;)


Like blind holes isn't the redundancy of hazard placement an issue that impacts the architecture. Variety remains the spice of life

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2021, 07:48:16 AM »
Richard,
Now that you explained what you meant (which is more in line with what I expected you would say) I guess I don’t have to buy the book  :D   Actually I look forward to reading it so please let me know when it is available! 


Archie and Mike,
Forrest and I know a good book specifically about hazards.  You might enjoy it   :D :D


Actually I don’t think the term Hazards even exists in the rules of golf anymore.  It didn’t exist in the beginning either, there were just Hazardous situations you got yourself into (like long rough) and you had to figure out how to extract yourself from there. 


Good luck with the book Richard!
« Last Edit: November 30, 2021, 09:54:44 AM by Mark_Fine »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2021, 09:29:36 AM »
Re: “Quirk is best discovered and should be sought out.”


[size=78%][/size]Rich —

[/color]What do you mean by “quirk”?Examples?[/size]How is it discovered if it is not sought? And why not sought?[size=78%][/size][/color][/size]Dan[size=78%][/size][/color]


I have no idea why this post is f’d up.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2021, 10:02:23 AM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2021, 09:58:15 AM »
I'm up for any book that really tries to describe the design thought process.  I still cringe when looking at the definitions (or non definitions) of strategy in those old gca books, which were useless, and didn't go into enough detail about why those axioms were supposedly true.


I describe hazard placement just like Richard does (and Mac) in that they are placed to create a shot type.  If you have to feather a 6 iron over a bunker to reach a pin spot that is only 45 feet deep, is that any harder a shot if the guarding bunker is 3 or 30 foot deep?


And I think Rich and I are in agreement that it's not a penalty or no penalty, it's a % of difficulty, i.e., should a fw bunker be so deep you can't reach the green, so shallow that there is no question you can still reach the green, or somewhere closer to 50-50% that you can clear the lip and reach the green?  My argument is that the 50% chance makes you more likely to challenge the fw bunker than the near 0% chance of recovery deep one.  It's only those flat bunkers some goofy greens chair decides to put in without moving any dirt that become totally irrelevant.


Sounds like it will be a pretty good book to me.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Richard_Mandell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2021, 05:14:13 PM »
The Element Chapters are as follows: 
  • Line
  • Space
  • Shape
  • Form
  • Texture
  • Color
  • Scale
  • Nature


The Principles Chapters are as follows:
  • Balance
  • Rhythm
  • Movement
  • Contrast
  • Emphasis
  • Proportion
  • Unity
  • Variety
  • Randomness
  • Chance
  • Visibility
  • Fairness
  • Playability
  • Difficulty
  • Penalty
  • Challenge
  • Par
  • Quirk
  • Mystery
  • Angles
  • Direction
  • Definition
  • Connection
  • Subtlety
  • Simplicity
  • Intention
  • Character