“Tee shots like approach shots”

[Simon Barrington]

Dear Ben

You are entirely missing the point, and now are doubling down on that misunderstanding.
Please re-read once again more carefully.

To attempt to help you, I introduced the two polarised ends of the debate, and noted in parentheses to the second that in my (limited) experience that one side tends to come towards the other with more knowledge and exposure (aka "experience").

There was absolutely no attempt on my part to dismiss, that is your defensive mis-reading.

Furthermore, it is not to say the other (experienced) side cannot learn from their observations and move their way (as I acknowledged there may be some balancing merit on this subject, and so did Tom)

The point is that the truth (as in most things) is somewhere between polarised views, and that the GCA fluxes (as it has across many years) between the two, such are fashions it has ever been thus. There is no right or binary choice here. Hard used to be called Good, now it is Fun that is lauded.


At the genuine risk of raising your (& others') trigger finger once again I do think it interesting that the "Templating" and geometric shaping of CBM, and even more so Raynor and Banks was even more exaggerated for the fact that neither Raynor nor Banks (and I am happy to be corrected on this by those that know more about these great men) ever actually saw (i.e. had "experience" of) any of the "Ideal Holes" used by CBM for NGLA, or elsewhere.

As such these holes seemingly became self-informing parody's (albeit great ones, and there is no criticism here as I am really quite fond of the variety, and respect their place in the game fully) with less than natural shaping to their surroundings (the advent of the steamshovel also compounding things).

These "templates" were seemingly imposed upon a suitable parcel of land, and the hole's strategy was not extracted nor discovered from the same (as a novel hole design would have been).

There seems, to the somewhat uninitiated observer, to be some sort of constant one-upmanship in each version of the templates, making each more and more "obvious". That may also be the case with modern renovations of the same, and perhaps someone with a chronological view across all their work can hopefully provide support or rebuttal of my conjecture here.

Would these template "ideal" holes across the US have been more "subtle" if they (Raynor & Banks) had seen the more restrained originals?


So in essence, I am not at all surprised that NGLA struck your (by your own description) non-architecture friends as exciting, especially from the tee.

For NGLA was and is a course specifically designed to be full of the "greatest hits" strategically, thus it was "dialled up" like no other course globally, probably ever. That is of course the case in regard to the tee-shots too, CB actively sought out challenging holes in their entirety.



I have some understanding of the potential negative reaction to such "dialling-up" as James Braid was often (& still by some) accused of beign too penal in design when in fact he was unrelentingly strategic, but in a really "dialled-up" sense for the Open Championship venues (& other courses of that desire) he remodelled/rebunkered (e.g. Troon, Carnoustie, Deal, Prestwick, Littlestone & Hunstanton).

If really looking for a course with such unrelenting diffculty and challenge from the tee as NGLA it might be worth considering Carnoustie (in a normal and NOT the exagerrated 1999 Open deep rough set-up).

So you can have too much of a "good" thing and there is a balance or tipping point at which some may recoil.

That is the point several have been trying to make, respectfully...

[Ben Sims]

Simon,


I’m only loosely aware of the Scottish line of my surname (and your forename) and its association as a sept of Fraser. I don’t think either of us want to be accused of proverbially ordering the piper ashore at Sword Beach.    I think we should temper the conversation.


I’ll be as genuine and succinct as I can be, I didn’t appreciate the tone of your first post. I’m not sure how else to react to the quote “The allure of the blatant is apparently stronger in the inexperienced.” I thought I was measured in my response to what read as a particularly egregious shot at the uninitiated. It looked like gatekeeping at best.


It seemed to me that you weren’t commenting on the substance of my post as much as impugning the idea behind it. Perhaps I’m being defensive here but I also think your style and substance aren’t hard to misread.


I don’t understand how templates are all of the sudden a whipping boy around these parts. 1) I didn’t invoke templates as much as I singled out The National 2) I am pointing toward carries and cross features and narrowing of corridors being distinctly more interesting as problems to solve from the tee. Brora does this in spades, as does The National, as does TOC. That the uninitiated would be in clear agreement with me was odd to me. Usually they just make fun of my hobby. Rarely do I strike a chord with them. I thought that worthy of discussion from a positive perspective and not as a chance to impart lessons.


PS (edit) no I am not interested in comparing tee shots. I hope that’s not what you got out of that piece. I think we all approach problem-solving from our own perspectives first. That’s all I was saying.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hey Ben,


I think that you are actually misunderstanding the intent of Simon’s use of the word “inexperienced”. He was referring to your friends, not you. Which was surely the point of your OP, that these fellas were inexperienced in their consideration of GCA.


NGLA got them to think about it. Which is a great thing.


My point - and I’ll paraphrase Tom Simpson - is that the “obvious solution is most often the wrong one” when designing a golf course.

[Ben Sims]

Hey Ben,


I think that you are actually misunderstanding the intent of Simon’s use of the word “inexperienced”. He was referring to your friends, not you. Which was surely the point of your OP, that these fellas were inexperienced in their consideration of GCA.


NGLA got them to think about it. Which is a great thing.


My point - and I’ll paraphrase Tom Simpson - is that the “obvious solution is most often the wrong one” when designing a golf course.

Ally,


I understand how you might think that. But I knew straight away the point Simon was making about my friends. I think it’s time that golf architecture enthusiasts grew up and agreed that if a meal tastes good, it tastes good. No matter the experience level of the taster. For the first time in my time waxing on about GCA to non-enthusiast friends (who are all multi-decade golfers) a point landed. That National was the reason why an architectural feature/idea landed doesn’t surprise me.


I think your quote from Simpson is an interesting one. One of the holes that embodies what I’m on about is the 7th at Old Barnwell. There’s lateral and longitudinal problems to be solved. And guess what the impetus of that hole is…one of Simpson’s drawings!

[Sean_A]

For me the idea of replicating the form of tee shots and approaches reduces variety. As I stated previously, the course would have to be designed exceptionally well for this concept to work if we are talking more than a small handful of holes.

Where does Muirfield fit?

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

For me the idea of replicating the form of tee shots and approaches reduces variety. As I stated previously, the course would have to be designed exceptionally well for this concept to work if we are talking more than a small handful of holes.

Where does Muirfield fit?

Ciao

I’m not familiar with Muirfield any more than I am Portmarnock. This is a more difficult conversation when we are less familiar with the opposite position’s best examples.


That said, I’m not really sure how having a different category of tee shots on a golf course reduces variety. All you have to do is 30 seconds of looking at NGLA on google maps and it’s clear that what I’m talking about doesn’t happen on all 15 of the non par 3’s. The concept I’m thinking of happens on 7-8 holes. Which means of the remaining holes, 6-7 of them are tee shots where a distance problem doesn’t need solving. You pick your line and hope you stay between the ditches and go as far as you want.


When I look at Muirfield on google maps, it seems you don’t have quite the same collection, and perhaps as many different kinds of problems to solve, as you do at NGLA from the tee.

[Simon Barrington]

Hey Ben,

I think that you are actually misunderstanding the intent of Simon’s use of the word “inexperienced”. He was referring to your friends, not you. Which was surely the point of your OP, that these fellas were inexperienced in their consideration of GCA.

NGLA got them to think about it. Which is a great thing.

My point - and I’ll paraphrase Tom Simpson - is that the “obvious solution is most often the wrong one” when designing a golf course.

Ally,

I understand how you might think that. But I knew straight away the point Simon was making about my friends. I think it’s time that golf architecture enthusiasts grew up and agreed that if a meal tastes good, it tastes good. No matter the experience level of the taster. For the first time in my time waxing on about GCA to non-enthusiast friends (who are all multi-decade golfers) a point landed. That National was the reason why an architectural feature/idea landed doesn’t surprise me.

I think your quote from Simpson is an interesting one. One of the holes that embodies what I’m on about is the 7th at Old Barnwell. There’s lateral and longitudinal problems to be solved. And guess what the impetus of that hole is…one of Simpson’s drawings!

Ally, you are correct. Thank you.

Ben, I framed an argument (perhaps poorly, but with no disrespect intended) and suggested that extremes converge over time, mostly (but not exclusively) towards knowledge and experience. Everything is fluid and non-discrete. Variety is precious, including the varied observations/likes of the “inexperienced”. All relevant to the OP.

NGLA is a unique course and case. It is truly great that it breaks through to your non-architecture friends.
Hence your excitement to share it with us. Thanks for doing so.

Other courses, beyond Carnoustie, that they might like to try out on the Sim: TPC Sawgrass, Pine Valley (very interested how they respond), Blackwolf Run, & especially The Lido.

Also the example of Old Barnwell’s 7th (a great hole on a highly-praised new course) is the classic use by Brain & Blake of strategic diagonal bunkering, which you may be interested to know was first detailed in print (as a specific strategic element) by James Braid in “Advanced Golf” (1908).

It is no wonder to me that you like Brora, and why I think the group might like Carnoustie on the Sim.


Lastly, to correct any assumption of my beliefs regarding the “inexperienced” I refer to a recent reply I made on another thread, which resonates with the food analogy;

“We and a non-GCA interested golfer might both enjoy a particular course equally, and we might understand more clearly why, but that is not essential as we both can still enjoy it.

But it is encumbent upon us all to realise that, what we both enjoy was put in the ground by someone talented with thought and care, and that should be respected and protected for future golfers' enjoyment.
That does not mean no change, just that it should be far more carefully considered.

Then the 95% might enjoy it even more, even though they may not understand or care why...but I suspect they know far more than we might think but just want a quiet life and to simply enjoy their golf, long may that be the case.

Finally, as Bobby Jones said:
"Every golfer worthy of the name should have some acquaintance with the principles of golf course design, not only for the betterment of the game, but for their own selfish enjoyment."

So if we are able to assist by bringing non-GCA folk along that journey, one golfer at a time, we do them individually (and the game as a whole) a great service.
This moment is your “opening” to your friends, they might in time thank you (and NGLA) for helping them cross that initial threshold/rubicon?

4 GCA nerds are better than 1, but I suspect you might then argue a great deal more in your Sim Room 

[Tags:]

Tags: