[Sean_A]

One concept which people think of as quirky is double greens. I am a huge fan, but I think so because it’s simple presentation, not quirky. I would like to see more double greens. I do notice greens close to each and wonder why not combine them and remove jarring rough between short grass areas…simple presentation.

Double greens are exactly the kind of feature I dislike, for the reason Ally said.  Nicklaus and Weiskopf each built a bunch of them in the USA back in the 80s and 90s, and the only reason for them was so that the marketing brochure could say the course has a double green “just like St Andrews”.  None of them ever felt “found” or that the design had evolved to connecting the greens in the field.

I know you don't like double greens. But I don't like greens next to each other that aren't connected. To me it looks sloppy and complicated because of various grass heights in close proximity. Same for tees...I would prefer tees close to each to be combined. I don't undertand the need for different grass heights between tees just because they are tees for different holes. Sometimes its unavoidable to separate greens because of elevation differences between the surfaces, but sometimes it makes perfect sense....to me anyway.


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


Following Tom's lead, let me also go all Pat M on you......

I am very much against homogenisation and codification. Most on here should also know how much I rally against change for changes sake on our links courses.


However, more and more (particularly in the new photo instant world), rankers / GCA nerds / people who care, seem to hang on to visual features, quirk and touch points in the way they talk and think about golf courses. This in turn seems to be driving GCA’s to build in more features than previous generations might have done.


All well and good. Visual features are an exciting part of the game. But I find there is a bit of a balance. Old school routing would have used ground features from the raw site. If there were none, few would be created. New school routing tends to build features for fun just to get noticed. Even on some good to excellent modern courses, it can start to feel just a little contrived.

I think this is a bad premise, really.  I have routed courses since 1977, with 60 built and an equal amount of routings that didn't.  I can tell you I tried to use the land in every single one of them, and I think most architects did and do.  Building visual features is separate from and usually on top of that, although I agree that fewer were built in the old days for the most part.  I once redid a routing to get a hole that needed cut because I followed the natural grade so well, only the pond was available to generate cut......Similar to the ongoing "original intent" thread, if I were going to move fw dirt on most holes, I would only do it if it didn't drain or didn't allow vision down the fairway.

If these features are genuinely adding variety to the way the hole is played, I can live with that contrived element more often than not. But we’re getting a little too much of the quirk = variety = good, even when there is no inherent playing variety.


Variety does not have to be obvious. And “quirk” often has very little to do with the way a hole is played.


But it is better when it is, no?  If a golfer doesn't see variety in the woods, does it really exist?  Granted, good players will notice play variety better than average golfers.


Has the balance tipped a little too much in the perception of what makes “good” golf? Is everyone just being a little obvious?

My old mentors used to debate how obvious it must be.  The dominant partner said it needs to be obvious (which means visually) because if that appeals to customers, you have to have it show for even the least observant.

(It’s a wide world with a place for all types of golf, I know, I know… it just seems no one will ever build a “simple but excellent” golf course ever again…)

I suspect if we wait long enough, someone will, but it will be on an excellent site, which was a rarity for me and most architects.  That said, and since TD mentioned Ron Whitten, I recall Ron saying that just as moviegoers favor action movies, I think most of us are conditioned more visually now, so that simplicity needs to still be visually appealing.  That said, I think Mac understood the need for artistry in bunkering 100 years ago, so nothing is really new.

I suppose you would say I was guilty of trying to make features somewhat visually unique, and I doubt those affected play very often.  My theory was that if nearly every hole needed bunkers, I tried to vary the look of those bunkers, including long strip bunkers, clusters of bunkers, etc., a different number of fw and green side bunkers on most holes, different arrangements (which do affect play).  Yes, some of that involved shapes that cast shadows or were unique in some way, riffing off but "enhancing" the natural character of the land.

If one test of a good golf hole is remembering it afterwards, recalling the one with the narrow play corridor, big green, rolling green, or number of bunkers, drop tee shot, etc., is a good design trick to get them to remember.  At least, IMHO.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi Jeff,


My third paragraph (the first you go Mucci on) was a bit clumsily written. I explain it better in my more recent posts.


The premise is really about overdoing the addition of features to hook people in; some just generally superfluous, some contrived to appeal to an in-crowd.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


Understood.  I did some courses in the beautiful Northwoods of Minnesota.  They did surveys on the most popular holes.  While on a few that were so naturally beautiful, I declined to add as many sand bunkers as I might have.  The surveys showed that the ones with "artfully" arranged bunkers were the most popular.  I didn't add many out-of-play bunkers just for looks, but I tried to make sure those I put in were both artful and tended to frame the hole and direct the eye to the green.


I thought that was a pretty good balance of designing visually without going very non-traditional.  But like most favored holes, again, the site was beautiful, so I had a lot of help being traditional.

[Mike_Young]

Couple of things...IMHO the really good players are less likely to shortside or land outside of the pin when there is short grass that can allow the ball to roll away.  It makes them play to the inside.  Also, I see more and more young players(college) using hybrid or five wood from these areas more than putter.

[archie_struthers]

 


It depends on your definition of "quirk" . Thinking that there is quirk and overdone and they are certainly different. Overdone would be where the ties ins to the green are poor and flashy , not allowing for run ups or having a multitude of false fronts and collection areas that are there for effect and not strategy.


How about bunkers that look great in pictures but older or less fit players can't get in and out of without help or fall down trying to escape. Whereas quirk might be a bunker in the middle of the woods like they have at the second and twelfth at Pine Valley. It's a "line of charm" that repels a ball into an area that might be a little sketchy for the upcoming shot. 


Overdone isn't cool but some "quirk" adds to the baking of the cake for me

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()