Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Young on November 29, 2006, 09:47:21 PM
-
I know I have my own ideas of how I determine depth based on strategy of the approach, slope of the green from the bunker edge and whether the top edge of bunker is below or above the green surface.....what else??
-
...keep digging until you hit some high percolating materiels.... ;D
Joe
-
Mike,
I get the impression from the Long Shadow thread that you like the player to be able to see the sand surface.
-
Mike,
I get the impression from the Long Shadow thread that you like the player to be able to see the sand surface.
haven't given it much thought really.....
-
Mike,
It's hard to ignore the development of clubs like lob wedges and clubs specifically designed for bunker play.
One has to ask, what type of challenge should be presented to an unsuccessful approach ?
How challenging should the recovery be ?
In general, I would think that the trend SHOULD be toward deeper bunkers.
But, the slope and contouring of the targeted green should be considered in concert with bunker depth and the nature of the approach.
-
Mike,
Nice Topic. I had this discussion the other day with a client, who felt no greenside bunker should be so deep you can't see the pin. I've heard well known pros say the same thing - if you can't see the pin the shot is as much luck as skill.
I'm not so sure I agree but that idea is usually beat into me. Golfers use the old "what if I miss it here?" argument, claiming that making bogey from any particular spot is a problem on the order of magnitude proximate to terrorism and world hunger.
I have long thought that generally, bunkers ought to be proportionally deeper for short iron approaches. Isn't a green side miss with an 8 iron a bigger mistake than a miss with a 4 iron? If so, does that warrant more difficult punishment? On public courses, owners want speed of play and deep bunkers are thought to slow it down, so I rarely do this.
My other thought is that generally, if there is a bunker one side but the other is open you could have a deeper bunker than if you bunker all or both sides to give more room to play away from it if you choose.
I tend to bunker deeper on a long par 4 if the tee shot is relatively easy, and do fewer or shallower hazards if it is more difficult. Or, I make both shots hard and make the green flatter.
As to green slopes, I have heard good players say they always want the green to slope towards the bunker, with one even saying water should drain into the bunkers, in case he is playing to a tight pin near the bunker, and he doesn't want to have the ball roll away from the pin.
I think that is overdoing it to make it easier on those players, while making it harder for the superintendent.
I may make the collar higher and more steeply sloped toward the green surface on longer approaches to help hold a skittering approach shot on the green (esp in cross winds) but this has the effect of making the recovery shot harder when you short side it. So, which is more important? I think the former, but there is holy hell to pay when someone misses and makes bogey from that bunker.
As Pat alludes, with lob wedges, I'm not sure extra bunker depth is a bad thing in a "pure design" and a green sloping away from you is lnot impossible, but still harder than hitting into the slope. If a course has some of each, its just something the golfer needs to know and learns over time.
I will be interested in hearing other thoughts.
-
Jeff,
I think the one thing that is rarely discussed on here is the internal strategy of bunkers.....
I have a friend , Richard Crawford from out your way....All american golfer at Houston and won the NCAA twice...very good player..grew up with DL2 and worked with Harvey Pennick......
Anyway he was describing how Plummer had explained bunkers to him one time.....
For EX: a bunker running parallel to the right side of a green the floor of the bunker should be built so that on the wall next to green there is a slight upslope to the shot onto the green and on the outside edge there would be a longer slope to the floor of the bunker sloping toward the green surface.....thus if a ball barely missed a green or rolled into the bunker from greenside, it was a much easier bunker shot than a shot that missed wide where one would have a downhill shot toward a green.
I also think that making a bunker shallower when the required recovery shot is to an area sloping away or the bunker is above the surface is more difficult than a deeper bunker. My theory is that because the player does not worry about height as in clearing a lip he will likely hit a shot that will run much further with the slope......JMO
-
I also think that making a bunker shallower when the required recovery shot is to an area sloping away or the bunker is above the surface is more difficult than a deeper bunker.
My theory is that because the player does not worry about height as in clearing a lip he will likely hit a shot that will run much further with the slope......JMO
That also allows putting and chipping as viable alternatives to recovery, which would seem to lessen the challenge.[/color]
-
I also think that making a bunker shallower when the required recovery shot is to an area sloping away or the bunker is above the surface is more difficult than a deeper bunker.
My theory is that because the player does not worry about height as in clearing a lip he will likely hit a shot that will run much further with the slope......JMO
That also allows putting and chipping as viable alternatives to recovery, which would seem to lessen the challenge.[/color]
Pat,
I think that would be possible if there was no lip and then when I think about it...I bet tempting a guy with the putter toward a downhill slope could be interesting.....and then again I could be thinking to much...
-
Mike,
I have heard better players argue for steep grass bank and flat bottom bunkers similarly.
The theory is that a shot that misses the green by five feet ought to be punished less than one that misses by ten. In a cape and bay style bunker, the five foot miss often plugs, since there is more of a tendency towards that on sloping sand, while the ten foot miss finds flat sand, and usually, a better lie.
In a flat bottom bunker, the five foot miss deflects off the grass bank and lands lightly in the flat bottom, while an aerial shot hitting the flat bottom does have a little chance of a fried egg or plugged lie – and proportionally more punishment.
I hear very few argue in favor of any downhill lie in the bunker. I suspect if you were thinking too much ;) you would say that a bunker with a downhill lie should be shallower since the ball will come out lower, and the green should slope up, since it will roll longer. If a bunker sloped up somehow all the way from back of bunker to green, allowing a clean pick and higher ball flight, a run away green might be in order.
Of course, all these ideas are based on the idea that a golfer "should" have a shot at the pin no matter where he/she is on the golf course. As Patrick alludes, one way to create some scoring differentials is to make the course so that isn't always true.
Personally, for all the theory, when I get to building stuff like bunkers, its usually the land that dictates and the slopes kinda come out like the slopes come out. :)
BTW, I saw nothing in your post that should lead anyone to believe that you were advocating bunkers shallow enough to putt out of. ;)
-
Jeff:
Of course Pros and good players want to see the flagsticks and hit into slopes. That's the best argument for building just the opposite.
Which comes first:
designing using risk/reward type thinking, or blending bunkers into the terrain and taking what you get?
What about situations like the second at Yale? The bunker to the left of the green isn't deep, it's just twenty or so feet below the green. I'm under the impression it is just there to keep a ball from going farther down the hill. A difficult recovery. to be sure, but also a benefit to the golfer.
-
I feel that this topic is like many broad brushed and non specific topics that come up here often....and I find that exceptions pop up as fast as a rule or theory is promoted.......and as such, I think generalities usually have to rule.
It could almost be described in science law form, as in 'for every design theory promoted, there is an equal and opposite design theory'.
I will say that when designing bunkers I refer to them in an order of magnitude from 1 thru 10.
...a 1 you can putt out of.
...a 10 is the deepest imaginable for Raynor or Banks, with the green surface 15 horizontal ft away but still 12 plus ft over your head...or like playing off Carmel beach up to 10 green.
I use these strengths to convey design and strategic intent to others as in;
The left side rear bunker should be a 7-8 to challenge the rear pin, while the front right carry bunker should be a strong 4 at the most.
......and then we decide what kind of frosting we want to add.......two popular choices are solid or lacy [but sometimes we combine the two like a double dipper]. ;)
-
There is no right or wrong of course, but I'm not much on "formulas" when it comes to building bunkers. Doesn't that concept play right into making sure every bunker is "fair" :(
"Fair" was one word Forrest and I tried to eliminate when speaking about the topic of bunkers or hazards in general. That word has caused more problems for golf course design and for superintendents, etc. as any other word in golf.
-
"I had this discussion the other day with a client, who felt no greenside bunker should be so deep you can't see the pin. I've heard well known pros say the same thing - if you can't see the pin the shot is as much luck as skill."
Jeff,
I know you question this sort of remark, but I don't get it at all. Before the player descends into a deep bunker, they surely check the position of the pin and slopes relative to their location in the bunker. This should take luck out of any equation even if the pin is not seen when the player takes his/her stance.
-
Mark ... some might argue that your efforts to eliminate 'fair' from your book is in itself not fair. ;)
-
I think any time you can't see the pin while playing from a bunker creates a demand for more skill.... and decreases the luck factor as well.
Hardly "as much luck as skill".
-
......and then we decide what kind of frosting we want to add.......two popular choices are solid or lacy [but sometimes we combine the two like a double dipper]. ;)
Paul,
You talk about screwing up your day......now you have me sitting here eating Briars Vanilla with chocolate syrup for breakfast......of course I rate it only about a 7 since I did not put pecans on it....
-
I'm with Mark Fine. Too many rules about proportionality and fairness can quickly get loopy. A miss is a miss and you takes your chances.
For example, a shot that just barely misses a green is more likely to plug in a flashed face bunker than one that misses by 5 yards or so, which will settle nicely in the bunker bottom.
Is that fair? I have no idea. But if you take that question seriously, you end up making so many fine grained distinctions the question starts to lose its meaning. I think it is an unhelpful way to approach the issue.
Bob
-
I have to say I've never really thought about this topic much in the abstract to come up with any sort of formula ... I have always just made the determination by standing inside the bunker and getting a feel for what I wanted to do.
Because our greens often have a lot of slope to them, I don't worry too much about the depth of the bunker as the key factor in how difficult it will be to get up and down -- in many cases, the contour of the green is making it plenty difficult even if you could putt out of the bunker.
I have, on occasion, designed a bunker deliberately so you could try to putt out of it, but if you have other bunkers on the same course with lips it is hard to get the superintendent not to put a lip on all of them in the interest of consistency.
-
Is a ball hit one yard out of bounds penalized less than one 50 yards out?
or one that's a foot short of clearling a lake penalized less than one 50 yards short of clearing?
a big miss into a bunker is it's own penalty typically because of length and possibly because of a higher likeliehood of a downhill lie-we don't need to slope the bunkers up near the green solely to aid the slightly missed shot (although that could be what happens due to other factors in design and construction)
Secondly, a shot where you can't see the pin is much more difficult and requires a different kind of SKILL.
Meaning someone who has good visualization,judgement,and memory and focus will hit more good shots to a blind pin than
someone who doesn't have these skills.Thus it's not a matter of LUCK but acquired or inate skill. In fact it's one of the few bunker shots that's not virtually automatic for the better player these days
Also,I think a green with a single nasty bunker(or one where the green runs away from it) leads to more missed greens (and shots)and requires far more committment and focus. At least for better players.
Most better players have a hard time aiming away and committing to a target away from a pin.
To me there's nothing more boring or easy than a green surrounded by light ,shallow bunkering-I'm going to aim dead at the pin with no fear of consequences or second guessing.
There's no point in aiming anywhere other than the pin and shallow bunkers provide far less penalty than rough or chipping areas.
Fortuneately the sheep that designed the original bunkers weren't good players with a sense of fairness ;D
I guess I'd just like to see less bunkers(which of course is better for higher handicappers and maintenance) and the ones that are there actually mean something.
-
"I guess I'd just like to see less bunkers(which of course is better for higher handicappers and maintenance) and the ones that are there actually mean something."
Jeff,
I once opined that philosophy, but all gca's seem to have gotten into the more and splashier bunkers as visual design elements. Hard to argue the logic in your post, though, other than more bunkers look, as Billy Crystal would say, "Marvelous."
I also agree on your OB and Water theories, but have never heard a golfer complain about those. Apparently they see an area of the course where they can't play as okay, but if they can play a shot, they think they deserve a shot right at the pin, and in most cases, some help from the design getting there.
Jack Nicklaus has said he doesn't think a course should ever hurt a golfer, or at least a good shot. Most agree, which leaves the question of do you design for risk reward strategy that seemed to be popular in the golden age, or do you design for current tastes?
For that matter, do we know that risk/reward was popular in that day and age with golfers, or was it just the deep thoughts of the architects of the day, with no real market testing. Now, that sounds like a John Kavanaugh question!
-
How many of you who are designers/architects, Mike, Tom, Jeff, Mark, Paul, me and others, normally use formulas for anything we do...except for drainage perhaps, but I know Tom doesn't worry too much about that silly thing? Doesn't that go against the philosophy of being designers/artists and being able to simply do what feels right at the moment, whether or not you are in the office looking at plans, maps, or out in the field as Tom says, standing in a bunker and then making the decision, albeit intuitively, based on the conditions before you, or those that you wish to create.
I know the last thing on my mind is any type of set formula...I do use familiar techniques, characteristics for say a fairway, or a green side bunker, but these are more or less based on personal preferences...but even those will often get thrown out once on site and the actual conditions assessed for the best approach at that time.
Fair...let's be serious! :o
-
Scott,
I am not a pro, but I would say all do operate or are guided by rules and conventions, some, perhaps, more specific than others. Most courses have 18 holes; three or more sets of tees usually elevated and differnetiated from the surroundings; turns and ground movement in the fairways; sand and grass bunkers; water hazards, trees and vegetation; rough and closely cut turf; four or more par 3s, two or more par 4s, and a larger number of par 4s. In fact, with the exception of Desmond Muirhead and perhaps Pete Dye, I think that most architects work from a very similar set of templates with variations more the result of budgets and site characteristics than originality or creativity.
Some architects like MacKenzie and Ralph Plummer had very well developed rules for what they wanted to accomplish. Most today work from well devleoped surveys, drawings, and plans. Few "design on the land", though some adpat or modify considerably in the field.
BTW, I see nothing wrong with any of this.
Mike Young,
Greenside bunkers so deep where one can't see the pin disproportionately punishes the weaker, less skilled player. It seems to me that more can be accomplished with positioning the bunkers, designing the greens, and setting up the course where the pro is hitting bunker shots to difficult pin positions landing on side or down slopes. Also, I would tend to be more lenient on bunkers guarding the right side of the green. Of course, the length of the approach should be well considered.
-
My first response was carelessly cavalier....but after reading all the responses as it pertains to strategy, fairness, visibility, etc., I wonder if there isn't some truth in my first response. Sometimes, good logic can lead to sensibility, randomness and can be averse to formulaic tendencies.
Obviously, the drainage dictation method doesn't work in clay or other non-draining medium, but there always is a sensible solution, and sensible shouldn't be ignored.
Joe
-
Lou:
Thank you for the lesson plan in GCA ;)
I don't believe Mackenzie, not as familiar with Plummer, actually considered them rules, at least not in the sense that you may be suggesting, beliefs or conventions, or a philosophical approach to his work, probably.
Nevertheless, I think you may not have fully appreciated my point...as an architect, designer, and yes artist at times, maybe this is just me and MHO, but I don't get too hung up on formulas. Now as you say, there are templates that many architects use, but even then, just my opinion, I think they are simply guidelines, a thoughtful set of characteristics if you want, that they use to get to a place where they can use their creative skills to their advantage and bring out the best in themselves an in the product. Hey, we could both be thinking the same thing and it is just the choice of words "formula" that makes it fuzzy ;D
I do think that with the technology of better surveys, GPS, surveying euipment, smart levels, construction euipment, etc...that some of this could be seen by some as being somewhat formulary.
-
Scott,
I am not a teacher. These are just my opinions and preferences, for whatever they're worth. In the hundreds of courses I've played, I see far, far more similarities than unique features. This does not mean that the designers did not approach their work with creativity and open minds.
It does make sense to me that through experience one learns what works under certain circumstances and what does not. Trying to go free form for the sake of being different or even eclectic would probably be quite dangerous in designing and building a product for what is generally a fairly conservative clientele.
I personally don't have a problem with an architect who designs outstanding golf courses even if they tend to resemble each other a bit. Fazio is often criticized for the similarity of his courses yet I don't hear of his business clients nor the majority of the users complain about it. If designing by a set of rules or standards yields highly desirable results, what would be the argument for not doing so? Different for the sake of being so?
-
Scott,
Its a semantic difference between rules, conventions, preferences, etc. no? Its not quite a rule like I always stop at stop signs, because there are no life threatening consequences. But most of what is designed is by some kind of rule, and MacKenzie and Ross had them, too. When they left their field guys to build from their sketches, they had to base final decisions on something, and they had to say "I know Mac likes......."
BTW, I strongly disagree with your "do what you feel like" design theory, even if you don't like the word formula. Any convention is a convention because it works in a large number of places. The idea of the "Master Builder" who can do no wrong is a completely false premise. The idea that golf courses are only art is a false premise. They are practical landscapes built for a specific purpose.
In my mind, I like to be able to answer very specifically when anyone asks why something is the way it is. There is always a reason for it in a good design. What, by the way, is design intuition, other than internally relating the current site and feature you are designing to other similar ones you have faced or seen in the past?
Things that relate to maintenance, like minimimum green sizes should be strictly adhered to. I won't go off and build a 2000 sf green. Convention or not, I know that its going to croak before the end of the second year. Not only is it not nice to fool Ma Nature, its not possible!
Even things that relate to playability - like providing cup settings at less than 3% should be adhered to. While these types of "rules" can be broken every so often, you should be very aware of why and how you do it, and why you think it will work this time. One or two broken rules makes for a unique golf course, but if you break basic design tenents (to throw a new word into the mix) too many times on one course, it just gets plain goofy.
Back to bunker depth determination - I think the brain power put into answering Mikes question on this thread may have exceeded the brain power used to build about 99% of the worlds bunkers. The average golf architecture fan/lay person thinks golf architects think through this stuff far more than we actually do. As I said before, bunker depth usually comes out to what it comes out. We probably only start thinking about "rules" when we accidently build something really shallow or really deep and start wondering about it.
Or, when someone touring in the dirt asks us either:
"Is this fair?" or,
"What the hell were you thinking when you built that monstrosity?" ;)
-
Jeff,
Wouldn't you agree that golf architecture is a lot like basketball, golf, football or many other sports.....fundamentals.....good fundamentals will take you a long way in sports and then you add the individualism to whatever you are doing...whether Iverson, Vick, Tiger or Brauer(now you can say you were mentioned in the same breath as these guys) and when you stray far from these fundamentals on a consistent basis....well...trouble....
-
Mike Young,
Are you telling me that "not thinking about it" is a fundamental of golf course architecture, as that is what JB is leading us to believe? ;D
Joe
-
Mike Young,
Are you telling me that "not thinking about it" is a fundamental of golf course architecture, as that is what JB is leading us to believe? ;D
Joe
Joe,
No I wasn't saying that...I was saying that if one has good fundamentals he doesn't have to think about it.....does a basketball player think about a jump shot..no...and if doesn't have good fundamentals he doesnt get far...same for golf archies IMHO.
-
....it just occurred to me that although I earlier gave a frame of reference for what a '1' or a '10' would be on my bunker strength scale, I forgot to include a mid range.
A '5' would be a bunker that I could stand in facing the green and take a piss without embarrassment while being viewed from three sides.
Hope this helps.
-
Paul,
You are a great salesman, adept at painting word images we can all understand.......
Mike,
I think of GCA fundamentals as being good in drainage, etc. That's where so many people building golf courses now are, to me, just playing in the dirt. As far as strategic design theories, I guess you could call the conventions that most of us closely follow fundamentals, but thats not quite the right concept. If I figure out what the right concept is, I'll let you know. :)
I like hockey better than basketball because players do stay in a teamwork mode to a greater degree than I see in the NBA or major college ball. I recall watching Bobby Knights 1976 era Hoosiers dismantle opponents with talent (although none of his stars were huge in the NBA) and teamwork - I don't think I ever saw them take more than a ten foot jumper after several crisp passes. Do we see that any more? I don't know, because all I watch is hockey.
Joe,
I know you are being faceitious to a degree, but I certainly don't think that gca can be done solely by formula and without thinking. Unlike building architecture, where the same toilet or doorknob can be used repetively, unique land forms makes most green designs a unique challenge.
It takes talent and much thought to apply fundamental (okay, maybe it is the right word) design theory to those unique sites and make it all work. At least, I have rarely been able to "mail it in" and make it right. Maybe other guys are smarter than me.
Having a fairly strong set of principals - whether minimalism, maximalism, or any stop in between, effectively reduces the number of options we might consider as gca's from infinite to a mere three dozen or so for each design problem.
And it may be great marketing to say you start completely fresh on each site, but in reality, its a difficult thing to do. Not impossible, since I still get excited at every new project to, for example, review bunker styles to match the site rather than doing the samo samo. In other ways - like deciding to build a 2000 SF green, its not so good. And, after building several courses, I wouldn't want to ignore lessons learned.
But that constitutes higher level thinking, not no thinking, IMHO.
-
By coincidence I was reading John Wooden's book on leadership last weekend, so I am more inclined to agree with Mike Young's advocacy of "fundamentals" much more than I usually would.
I think my fundamentals are just a bit more elaborate than a lot of people's, because I have seen so many good golf courses and I can clearly remember how the "shoulds" in Jeff's arguments have been broken successfully on a great hole somewhere. But, if you are not aware that there are rules which you should be careful about breaking, Mike is right, you are very likely to find yourself building something dumb.
Paul: So is that how you number the bunkers which are rated 5 or higher?
-
My impression of good fundamentals for working architects is a little bit like that for golf teachers.
Teachers and architects are working within certain paramaters or fundamentals. The more experienced one is ,the wider those paramaters can be,but only when the occasion calls for it.
A less experienced teacher might needlessly force a talented player into his limited paramaters, thus spoiling the natural talent of the player, the same as an inexperienced architect might force a fundamental or paramater on a unique piece of land or greensite, thus limiting its' potential. the secret is knowing when and how widely to enforce the parameters.
The same as many players have been overcoached and had the talent and feel sucked out of them, a piece of land could be ruined or underutilized by someone lacking the experience to know the difference.
As Tom Doak notes it helped him to have a wide range from all the courses he's seen/played,and he might not even be aware of what fundamental he's employing,the same as Mike's analogy to a player taking a jump shot.
I must say when I played the second hole at Sebonack I had a rare moment of "I've never seen anything like this before"
and I've seen my share of UK and US courses
I'm pretty sure an inexperienced, nonwelltraveled architect would've lacked the courage for that hole. Particularly in collaboration with the world's greatest player.
-
Mike,
I think of GCA fundamentals as being good in drainage, etc. That's where so many people building golf courses now are, to me, just playing in the dirt. As far as strategic design theories, I guess you could call the conventions that most of us closely follow fundamentals, but thats not quite the right concept. If I figure out what the right concept is, I'll let you know. :)
I like hockey better than basketball because players do stay in a teamwork mode to a greater degree than I see in the NBA or major college ball. I recall watching Bobby Knights 1976 era Hoosiers dismantle opponents with talent (although none of his stars were huge in the NBA) and teamwork - I don't think I ever saw them take more than a ten foot jumper after several crisp passes. Do we see that any more? I don't know, because all I watch is hockey.
Jeff,
I could probably start a new thread on fundamentals. But IMHO take Hockey or any other sport and they all have fundamentals....from my experience all great coaches teach fundamentals at some point in each practice......and the one fundamental all sports have in common is balance.(funny how that word works for all great courses also IMHO)....in BB they teach the hand position on the BB and to square up, how to defend, and many more......in golf we have grip, balance, stance etc and I am sure hockey is the same......AND in all these sports you can find guys with talent and poor fundamentals and they will get beat by less talent with good fundamentals.....going back to BB you will often see a team with one star and 8 good fundamentaly sound players beat teams with several stars and fundamentally weak 6789 men.......
Anyway as for golf architecture I do think there are basic fundamentals that all good golf courses have and I dont think it has to do with design style....IMHO these would be some things such as tee locations and sizes, drainage, landing area widths for the appropriate shot, approach angles relative to green strategies, green sizes, and it could go on....for instance strategies can have many different aestheic looks whether they are modern, tradional 80s or dead guy stuff.....
Anyway...
-
In Architecture I have seen way to many poorly designed structures created by people who definitely know building fundamentals but then use that same knowledge to make up for a lack of design talent.
Anyone who can get paid to build a golf course has to possess basic design and engineering skills....but these fundamentals don't guarantee a great course.
The talent to do that is an entirely different matter.
-
Jeff:
"Its a semantic difference between rules, conventions, preferences, etc. no?"
Yes I would agree.
"Any convention is a convention because it works in a large number of places. The idea of the "Master Builder" who can do no wrong is a completely false premise. The idea that golf courses are only art is a false premise. They are practical landscapes built for a specific purpose."
I agree again about the convention reference and it again comes down to semantics in many ways and perhaps I was getting too hung up on the definition of 'formula' and the connotation it implied to the design field, whether GCA or not. I didn't say that golf courses were only art, and if I implied that, it wasn't intended. Yes thay are practical in many respects, but even here, (sorry I am geting off the track a bit) using the word practical in the context of discussing design and art seems a bit contradicting, just rubs the wrong way...all this even though I recognize that GCA in many ways applies practical conventions and fundamentals first in order to set up the opportunities for one to be more creative.
"Even things that relate to playability - like providing cup settings at less than 3% should be adhered to. While these types of "rules" can be broken every so often, you should be very aware of why and how you do it, and why you think it will work this time. One or two broken rules makes for a unique golf course, but if you break basic design tenents (to throw a new word into the mix) too many times on one course, it just gets plain goofy"
I am aware of all this, but I think some of us operate with these design tenents in the forefront of work and at times it can direct or sway the design in ways that might have otherwise been more creative if these conventions were placed off to the side for a while first...just a thought.
Mike:
"good fundamentals will take you a long way in sports and then you add the individualism to whatever you are doing"
I like this and feel it is more in line with how many of us work especially when making the transition from the office to the field. Though I am sure there are plenty of sound fundamentals applied first in the office...even by Tom Doak ;) if only to be used as a good starting point from which to develop an idea further in the field to fit the site and other design conditions.
Paul:
"A '5' would be a bunker that I could stand in facing the green and take a piss without embarrassment while being viewed from three sides."
There is much on this site that I enjoy as a work release now and again and the humor from you and Jeff Brauer can really brighten a day. I can always count on you to post something to keep it all in perspective and I suspect it comes quite natural :D
-
In Architecture I have seen way to many poorly designed structures created by people who definitely know building fundamentals but then use that same knowledge to make up for a lack of design talent.
Anyone who can get paid to build a golf course has to possess basic design and engineering skills....but these fundamentals don't guarantee a great course.
The talent to do that is an entirely different matter.
Paul,
I agree. I never said fundamentals guaranteed a great course...I said you will not find a great course without fundamentals......same for players in most sports..IMO
Mike