Way too much going on

[archie_struthers]

 




I recently played a golf course where there was way too much going on!  Where do you personally draw the line that enough is enough? When is design overkill just awful ?  I'm interested to see your thoughts on this...

[Tim Passalacqua]

T

[Ally Mcintosh]

I recently played a golf course where there was way too much going on!  Where do you personally draw the line that enough is enough? When is design overkill just awful ?  I'm interested to see your thoughts on this...

I think there is too much going on with many modern golf courses but that doesn’t mean I think they are awful. I just think they have gone for eye candy over subtlety. That sometimes takes away from the “naturalness”.

[Thomas Dai]

Not just eye candy etc but far too much course furniture, paths etc and don’t get me started on over-conditioning.
Atb

[Scott Warren]

Archie,

Personally, it’s excessive features/shaping on the flanks of the hole that irritates me.

If it’s in the corridor between the tee and the green, I generally welcome the interest that’s brought to the hole. MacRaynor courses for instance have a lot happening but it largely all contributes to the quality of the golf hole.

In contrast, Ross Watson (an Aussie designer) comes to mind as one who built a ton of golf in the areas between holes, but very little of interest in the holes themselves.

I’ve never played any Mike Strantz courses but am playing four or five in a week or so early next month and I’m really excited to see what they look and play like in terms of what I am expecting from what I’ve read about his approach to the design of the holes, but also to the off-piste parts of the properties. Maybe off-piste interest done well won’t annoy me the way I’ve generally found it to in other cases.

[Sean_A]

Not just eye candy etc but far too much course furniture, paths etc and don’t get me started on over-conditioning.
Atb

Course furniture such as benches, ball washers and rubbish bins are annoying. Prepared paths down the middle of corridors annoys me. Also dislike any type of fake grass for tees, paths and tarmac or concrete paths for carts etc. Can't escape it all, but their placement and and reason for being need to be questioned.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


Totally agree with Scott as to excessive bunkering and features on the flanks doesn't work. That's exactly what I encountered Friday in our round. There were so many little bunkers and mounds that needed hand work that the maintenance issues are myriad and ridiculously expensive.


Moreover it is
way too busy GCA wise!

[MCirba]

Archie,

Let me guess.   S G
 

[Kyle Harris]

Archie,

Let me guess.   S G
 

Immediately thought this. I'm shocked it seems to have all survived for so long.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I dont know how to "draw the line" per se, except to place it in a previously determined  "one and done" category and simply "vote my opinion with my feet"....


Examples that come to mind:


Whistling Straits - really...?...how many bunkers are really needed there...?
Oakmont..!!! - perfect example of how pure difficulty and excessive bunkering strip enjoyment away from a game.

[Kalen Braley]

This is an interesting topic.  Never been there, but sure seems there is a lot going on at courses like Pine Valley and TOC as well.

P.S.  I missed it, what is SG?

[Peter Pallotta]

I've rarely played courses with too much architecture; but I've certainly played courses with too many textures and colours. That busy aesthetic (especially for a monochrome sensibility) tends to overwhelm what -- I suppose -- it's intended to highlight.

[archie_struthers]

 


You guys got me , but they are so nice when you go there I'm loathe to say too much. However when the architect visited Twisted Dune he was obviously unimpressed, and made no bones about it. When I went down and saw his though, just chuckled to myself.


Like telling a father his daughter is dog ugly , just sayin

[MCirba]

Archie,

Understood, and felt a bit guilty as well stating that.

That's why I play them all...sometimes you can't see how good something is until you see the opposite.   

[Tim_Weiman]

Totally agree with Scott as to excessive bunkering and features on the flanks doesn't work. That's exactly what I encountered Friday in our round. There were so many little bunkers and mounds that needed hand maintenance that the maintenance issues are myriad and ridiculously expensive.


Moreover it is
way too busy!

Archie,


In your esteemed opinion, is the right side of #2 at Pine Valley a little bit guilty?

[archie_struthers]

 




Tim , I'm going to say no to the question of the second at PV.  There's nothing you see off the tee to the right that kind of jumps out at you and the bunkers over there are mostly natural pots that have been there forever. Doesn't look like man's handiwork at all.


If there is anything there  that might fit this it's the new work on twelve...think exposing the existing traps and clearing all the trees would have been more than sufficient.

[MCirba]

Tim , I'm going to say no to the question of the second at PV.  There's nothing you see off the tee to the right that kind of jumps out at you and the bunkers over there are mostly natural pots that have been there forever. Doesn't look like man's handiwork at all.


If there is anything there  that might fit this it's the new work on twelve...think exposing the existing traps and claering all the trees would have been more than sufficient.

Archie,

Agreed on all counts.   


Tim doth noth know what he's comparing it to in terms of gradations of excess.

On the other hand, perhaps maximal-ism will be the new wave?   


Or, perhaps not.   

[Mike_Trenham]

I've rarely played courses with too much architecture; but I've certainly played courses with too many textures and colours. That busy aesthetic (especially for a monochrome sensibility) tends to overwhelm what -- I suppose -- it's intended to highlight.

Peter- I am intrigued by this as my thought is texture/definition is just as important as architecture. 


What I don't like is forced multiple heights of cut along the main playing areas (first cut of rough, wide aprons, dew paths) and excessive stripes created by mowing patters and don't get me started on flashy white bunkers.

[Joe Bausch]

I need to get back to S G.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim , I'm going to say no to the question of the second at PV.  There's nothing you see off the tee to the right that kind of jumps out at you and the bunkers over there are mostly natural pots that have been there forever. Doesn't look like man's handiwork at all.


If there is anything there  that might fit this it's the new work on twelve...think exposing the existing traps and clearing all the trees would have been more than sufficient.

Archie,


Re #2, does “forever” mean the right side hazards were just exposed with original tree clearing and not something created when building the course?


Also wondering your opinion of left of #5 green.

[Sean_A]

Too much going on for could be too many bunkers, a lack of a few straightforward holes or greens, too many grass cut levels in close proximity, combo of hazards such as trees and heather or trees and sand or water and sand or any of the above with a dramatic feature, blind shot with decent possibility of lost ball/ball in hazard, rough in combo with any of the above etc. etc. Loads of too much going on is solved with less sand, water, rough and trees.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


Tim I don't know how those bunkers came into being. However if you walk thru the woods away from some of the holes you will find similar "pits" strewn throughout the property. To the left of the sixth fairway is a series of bunkers that most would never see. I distinctly remember Pete Dye walking around in them like a little kid in a sandbox, as if he just found a treasure. At the time my interest in GCA was nascent , but 45 years later that image is clear as a bell in my mind.


I'm ambivalent as to the bunkers on 5 , but most would favor it over Mr Ewing's house being there. Particularly when Sir Alec is no longer with us. I don't like the strategy of the bunkers that were added on top of the hill on four or to the right of nine fairway but they blend in seamlessly. Four particularly in this respect doesn't seem to be an improvement. Tom Paul and I have had quite the discussion on four over the years, and I'm comfortable he concurs. As to TEP, to this day I am struck by his incredible knowledge of all things PV, despite not being there near as often as I was. In many ways my employ there as a caddie and assistant allowed me to roam all over the property, which I did. Of course Tom never could have seen some of the places I visited because on his worst day he hit it straighter than me on my best

[Brett Meyer]

I've rarely played courses with too much architecture; but I've certainly played courses with too many textures and colours.

I do think that there's such a thing as too much architecture and this was a point I was trying to make in my thread on Tobacco Road a few weeks back. Some of greens are just too elaborate and long and I think that many of these would better if they were edited down to one or two sections. You'd still retain the main interest of the hole. To me, if you can say the same thing in fewer words, you should do that.

I also agree that there can be too many textures and colors. Related to this is that sometimes, courses have too many different architectural landscapes. The best (worst) example of this for me is the New Course at Indianwood in Michigan, which goes from Pine Valley to northern Michigan to Pete Dye to imitation St. Andrews (with heavy mounding and a cross-over double green) in the span of about 5 holes. It often feels like you're playing a different course going from hole to hole.

To be fair, if part of your site is in a forest and part of it is in a field, those holes shouldn't feel the same. But I think it's good to have some consistency in what you're building between the sections.

[MCirba]

Archie,

Speaking of finding bunkers in the trees, I'll never understand why the "restoration" of the left side of number 12 wasn't just mostly a tree clearing exercise to highlight that cascade of original bunkering but instead turned into an excavation exercise to create new ones.   That type of bunkering isn't evident anywhere else on the golf course and it stands out as excessive because of it.

[archie_struthers]

 
Mike, as Yoda may have said "the nail yes you hit it".


Such a opportunity on twelve existed just by denuding the trees that had grown over the years. Perhaps the architect feared it afforded too simple an option for the bombers who could now clearly see the green but I'm not buying into that. Trying to hold that green even with today's new equipment requires an absolutely precise shot with a wedge let alone a three wood or driver.


If Tim wants to see a myriad of bunkers like #2 all you have to do is take a walk along the ridge line that runs along the left side of the hole or thru the woods left of twelve, they are scattered all over. If you took a lot of those trees out on the ridge on 12 you just might see the 15th green below. Don't think you would have a visual of 15 except maybe while putting on 12. Now wouldn't that be incredible.


Talking about messing with a national treasure is a little sketchy and the powers that be have been very prudent over the decades in not rushing to do anything save make the conditioning world class and removing lots of the scrub that I first saw in the late 70's. The new tees are great and generally not needed except for the very best players who visit. However they put driver back in the hands of Crump Cuppers et al.


In the end it's the talking and thinking that's fun isn't it!