The Story an Architect tells about the Course

[Tom_Ross]

So much has been written about the strategic vs. penal schools of architecture and the naturalness vs. manufacturing of holes, but it seems that nothing is ever written about an architects ability to tell a story or lead the player through the extent of the adventure that they are about to undertake.  

I'm beginning to read about Behr's concept of golf as a "game" vs. "sport", but this places the player in the role of man vs. nature or the idea of man as a warrior in an upcoming battle.  

If you approach a course with the mindset of it leading the player into a story told by the architect, you begin to look at architecture and architects in a different light.  

Let's take an example using an approach taken in classic literature, whereas the story begins by introducing the reader to the protagonist and antagonist, but also showing them a glimpse of the challenges that will be faced by the protagonist.  The story grows through futher character development and disclosure of the story.  The story builds to a climax, the great challenge to the protagonist is settled and the themes and morals of the story are finally revealed.  The ending usually contains a final breath of summary and a final reminder of the characterists of the story.

Using this template, looking at a course like Cypress Point begins to further reveal the greatness that McKenzie was able to create.  The course starts by introducing you to the beauty of the land, the ocean winds and a glimpse of the dunes.  The player becomes the central character in this story as they will be challenged by maybe antagonist forces, including undulating greens, dunes, wind and multiple shot decisions that could produce great or "tragic" results.  Holes #8 & #9 introduce central decisions to the player that coud result in career rounds or dreadful results.  From there the course builds the challenge until the climax at Holes 15-17.  
And while many people (recent GCA.com DG thread) feel that #18 is a letdown, looking at it in the context of an overall story shows that it serves the proper places of the short finish that leaves the player with one final glimpse of the soul of the story.  
 
Maybe other great courses could be characterized through this approach, although they will not all follow this literary model.  In fact, I'd argue that some other courses would better use symbolism and deception of the reader (player) to serve their story-telling capabilities.  

Should today's architects attempt to incorporate this approach into their new courses?  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- I believe they should. However, with such a low literacy rate, their bother shows exceptional love. Pinon hills tells just this type of story, but in it's current configuration, the characters reveal their nature, prior to the introduction. A huge mistake.

One thing I've noticed is that many stories try to do all the climaxing on or about the 15th hole. What's odd is there seems be no story to climax rather just a desire to have a tough close.

[cary lichtenstein]

Being the simpleton that I am, I prefer color pictures with captions beneath them.

[TEPaul]

Tom Ross:

Way to start out on Golfclubatlas.com with your first post---that's impressive. I wish other new contributors could begin the way you just have!

So you're starting to read Max Behr are you? Well, read very carefully, put the essay down for a time, take a couple of advil or tylenol and read it again. Then take a couple more aspirin, read it again and call me!  

After you've let some of the things he says about golf as a "sport" vs golf as a "game" and architecture's part in that sink in for a while I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say about what Behr might feel about an architect telling the golfer a story.

It's my sense that to a man with the philosophy about golf and architecture that Behr had the ideal might be that the golfer not exactly feel that he went out there and was presented for his enjoyment some wonderful story by the architect but that he went out there and found his own story.

One of the over-riding fundamentals of Behr seems to be that a golfer should feel he has true freedom of expression within the so-called "Natural School of Architecture" that his strategies are his own--not the architect's--or very ideally  that a golfer may not even notice that an architect had actually presented them to him.

Behr, I believe, felt that an architect should try to hide his own hand in the creation of his design as best he could and if somehow he could manage to make a golfer feel that he (the architect) had not even created a story, but that the golfer had found one of his own within a natural environment---so much the better!

But Behr always made at least four exceptions to a true presentation or imitation of Nature in golf architecture--those of course being golf's requisite and somewhat unnatural  features of tees, fairgreens, greens and bunkers but even those he appears to have dreamed someday could almost be blended in to create an even greater perception of nature for the golfer.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom P- Thats interesting how the story could be different for different minds. I suppose that's versatility. In my 'mind' I see the flow of the features to be a large part of the art. And if they are natural, all the better. Take Pebble, the flow out to the tenth is as dramatic as it gets, yet the golfer still has 8 holes to go. Almost like a decompression chamber, the golfer has to wait for the return to the 18th for comparable Drama. But with these modern courses, that may or may not be built on the best parcels of the site, would'nt they by necessity need to be constructed/manufactured to attempt to formulate the words needed for a good story, let alone flexible enough to stir multiple souls.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom,

I'll second the cheers to your initial post.

"A game of golf is a story written each day by those who seek recreation, companionship, and competition on a stage defined partially by the golf course routing and always by nature. It is the perfect improvisational theater. Although an actor can get to know the stage like the back of his hand, he cannot be quite sure what will be demanded of him next. His only choice is to take what is given and do his best to overcome the difficulty...Golf has its introduction, characters, chapters, occasional chase scene, climax, and ending. Good stories have unpredictable twists, sometimes with surprising realizations or even humorous outcomes. Bad stories have not much of any of this. Bad golf courses are like bad stories."

I go on from there. This was but one bit from my book, in which I give great thanks to Dr. Ed Sadalla for his additional writing about the psychology of golf course design.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom Ross, have to disagree with your opinion of #18 at Cypress Point, I just found that to be an unsatisfactory golf hole with all those trees in the target area and line to the green.  But it's nothing a good chainsaw couldn't solve!

And welcome to GCA!  

[TEPaul]

a clay man said;

"In my 'mind' I see the flow of the features to be a large part of the art. And if they are natural, all the better."

Adam:

BAA BAA BOOM! You said a mouthful there! At least you did in the philosophy of someone like Max Behr!

Successful golf course architecture is an art--an art form (certainly in the opinion of Behr)! Someone like a Rich Goodale who continues to claim that golf architecture is not in the realm of ART, shows just ignorance, naivete or bullshit, in my opinion. Golf architecture can be an art form and great golf architecture can be great art.

But as Behr stressed, the art is one of interpretation! It's an artist's or an architect's interpretation but Behr says the medium to be used but not dominated by man is the earth and nature's forces! "To be used" is probably not strong enough. He said they (the earth and nature's forces) are the medium of the architect and they are master of that medium which the architect should not and cannot try to dominate!

If existing natural features don't give the architect much he must compensate and imitate nature. But the key is to do so in a way that appears, at least in the golfer's perception to be natural or a great imitation of nature. If you have nothing of nature that's useful then build something like the Lido that looks to the golfer like it wasn't created by man. If you have something of nature that's useful for golf then take the time to figure out how to use it for golf.

But your quote is true because as far as I've ever seen or known there never has been a golf course that's so naturally obvious that it never had to be changed or interpreted by an architect!

[A_Clay_Man]

TomP- After I wrote that post I couldn't help but think about an unanswered question (surprise) I asked PM in the "pond" thread at Garden city. I asked Pat if the flow of features of the surrounding holes could shed any insight into what the right choice might be for the 16th hole. He did say that he didn't understand what I meant. I suppose I was thinking about the "story" of GC and how incoporating what should be done, needed to fit into the chapter verse and sentences of it's story.

With all the fun I have with Shivas about the 15th at Pebble, I feel compelled because its a verse that requires a slowing of the heart or whats effectionaly known as a breather. Same as BB #18, CPC#18. etc.

[Forrest Richardson]

I would hardly call CPC's No. 18 a "letdown", nor would I get to excited with a chainsaw. It is an unexpected finish, perhaps, but one which helps to define the trek back to Point A.

"The towering cypress trees line the parade route back home. They are crowding the street and waving. As if our journey has not been full of surprise enough, we are now asked to play an obstacle course of woods....This is the home stretch...we see signs of activity...The anticipation of coming home is in the air."

[Tom_Ross]

TEPaul,

I'd say that I'm in agreement with your statements (or interpretation of Behr's) that the story should be one that a player needs to find.  And while this might be in parallel to presenting a player with various strategies on a hole, I think the architect owes it to himself to go to the next level and create the ability to present different stories based on the overall strategy a player uses...on a particular day.  

An example of this would be at Pine Valley, where the combination of penal vs. strategic is a nice blend.  So the player is challenged with placing himself in the role of hero at the tee and the potential for impending glory or doom, or if he takes a strategic approach and defers the role of hero until later in the play of the hole (ie. chipping & putting).  If the approach is chosen correctly, and it could vary on a day to day basis, the player can move through the course in a manner that not only reveals the story of the arcitecture, but also allows them to comprehend their challenge.  But if the approach is chosen incorrectly, meaning that the approach to penal vs. strategic is constantly at war with each other, then the story of the course becomes schitzophrenic.

[TEPaul]

Tom Ross:

I don't really think the "story" of a golf course needs to be something a golfer finds for himself as I said I thought Behr might ideally feel. I doubt many, if any, courses are that way or even ever could be completely. All the courses I know of probably are some "story" as the architect intended to present it to the golfer.

What I said about Behr, again, should probably be considered some supreme ideal that probably has never come to be (except in the pre-architecture days of raw natural linksland golf hundreds of years ago) and perhaps never will be or will be able to be again.

Behr, clearly believed in a strong inclusion of nature or the perception of it in architecture for a golfer. The reasons he believed that are many and interesting--however, he was a realist in recognizing and admitting that even in an ideal sense there were those necessary requisites of the game or sport of golf that would prevent this from ever happening completely.

Probably a logical analogy would be taking a walk through raw nature by having to follow a path some man may have made vs taking a walk through raw nature were there is no path. It seems to me no matter how hard any architect may ever try to take naturalism into the format and playing fields of golf eventually, as Behr said by mentioned those 3-4 exceptions--eg tees, fairgreens, greens and sand bunkers (where sand isn't naturally occuring) that those 3-4 requisite features of golf will always create some sort of man-made path through nature.

[TEPaul]

Tom Ross said about PVGC;

"But if the approach is chosen incorrectly, meaning that the approach to penal vs. strategic is constantly at war with each other, then the story of the course becomes schitzophrenic."

Tom:

Interesting remark. There's no question in my mind that PVGC is one of the best architectural examples in the world of penal and strategic but I've never thought there's a thing schizophrenic about that unique combination. But it's true if a golfer playing that course does not possess a certain level of physical skill or even if a very good player does not possess a certain level of mental or psychological control of his game PVGC will expose both weaknesses in a heartbeat. It's always been that way.

[Dan Kelly]

Tom Ross:

Way to start out on Golfclubatlas.com with your first post---that's impressive. I wish other new contributors could begin the way you just have!

I'll bet you a round at Gulph Mills that that's not the so-called Tom Ross's first post!

Oh, no, wait! I don't have a round at Gulph Mills to wager!

Smiley, smiley, smiley.

[Tom_Ross]

I can assure you that Tom_Ross is not TEPaul, Tom Paul or Paul Thomas.  There are still a few of us out here that don't want to talk about lists/ratings, political agendas or "my favorite thing about <insert_here>"....

[Dan Kelly]

I can assure you that Tom_Ross is not TEPaul, Tom Paul or Paul Thomas.  There are still a few of us out here that don't want to talk about lists/ratings, political agendas or "my favorite thing about <insert_here>"....

What a coincidence! Other than golf, <insert_here> IS my favorite thing.

Tom_Ross -- I was not suggesting that you were another incarnation of Tom I -- merely that you were not the Newbie you pretend to be!

Oops. This is getting logorrheic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

TomP- After I wrote that post I couldn't help but think about an unanswered question (surprise) I asked PM in the "pond" thread at Garden city.

If you didn't get the gist that there was no departure, nothing significant in the features of the holes pre and post
# 16, that could support the relevance of the pond on # 16 then you didn't read all 293 posts carefully enough.

I asked Pat if the flow of features of the surrounding holes could shed any insight into what the right choice might be for the 16th hole.

You also said, "that great golf courses had a certain flow", and then went on to say that, "Hard to put into words because each is different"  If it's hard to put into words, by your own admission, why should I be pressed to put it into words ?  Especially, if it can't be put into words, as you stated ? If you saw the golf course, traipsed its fairways, the answer to your question would be self evident and I believe it was answered several times prior to post # 238.

He did say that he didn't understand what I meant. I suppose I was thinking about the "story" of GC and how incoporating what should be done, needed to fit into the chapter verse and sentences of it's story.

I asked you what you meant, and you said, "are there any clues on the holes pre and post # 16 that might provide an answer to the pond on # 16 question in the context of the other holes ?"  That question was asked and answered many posts prior, and I'll repeat it again for you.  The pond, immediately adjacent to the green on # 16 is out of character with the features immediately adjacent to the other 17 greens.

In addition, Travis and Emmett saw fit to have bunkers adjacent to that green.  If they thought a pond was appropriate, they would have inserted one, but they didn't.

You also stated that "the 16th hole is usually the key hole on most courses", and I would strongly disagree with that statement.  
Why is # 16 any more key then # 9, # 18, # 1 or any other hole ?

With all the fun I have with Shivas about the 15th at Pebble, I feel compelled because its a verse that requires a slowing of the heart or whats effectionaly known as a breather. Same as BB #18, CPC#18. etc.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Welcome back Pal!!

That's quite a post you returned with. Architecture ain't easy but GCGC restoration architecture is really tough and I doubt either Walter or Dev could make heads or tails out of that post. Just get rid of the pond, expand the fairway 30 yards left and about 15 yards right, restore the mid-body bunkers including the cop bunker and plant some asparagus bed mounds down to the left of the green and GCGC will have a wiz-bang 16th hole again!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You brought up an interesting point.

I believe that Travis had more then one encounter with the membership, and perhaps old Dev had a few himself.

I wonder, if they were alive today, and collectively lobbied for the elimination of the pond, how would the membership respond to their advocacy ??

Would they accept and embrace them, or reject them ?