News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Adam_F_Collins

GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« on: December 17, 2005, 04:02:44 PM »
I was thinking about Tom Paul's "Big World Theory" and the idea that diversity in any artform is really a good thing. Golf does not have a playing field with as specific dimensions as many other sports, which is why so many here on this site are concerned with allowing the land to influence a design in order to create true "character" and well, - diversity.

But how much diversity can we really take? Are golfers just about the most conservative bunch of people in the world? How different can a golf course get before it's labled "ridiculous", or "gimmicky", or just plain "bad"?

People like Desmond Muirhead really tried at times to push the envelope, and we don't see much of that. It didn't exactly 'catch on' in a big way. Are Golf Course Dreams often really more like cookie-cutter templates of former successes?

How different can a hole be and actually get away with it?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 04:21:21 PM by Adam_Foster_Collins »

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2005, 04:18:33 PM »
I think a good example of diversity is Tobacco Road. The number of rounds played there speaks for itself.

If you build something great, they will come in droves even if the minialists don't like it.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2005, 05:27:38 PM »
Cary:

Mike Strantz himself told me that Tobacco Road was his version of a minimalist design.

I think Adam is right.  True diversity is generally frowned upon, until a consensus develops that it's cool.  Muirhead's courses were labeled as goofy by many critics including myself, because they didn't seem to be about golf so much as other things; Bob Cupp's course at Palmetto Hall [which I haven't seen] was also roundly panned.  And yet both architects considered these among their best work.

I think Jack Nicklaus could get away with just about anything he wanted to, because his name would carry the day.  I think I've got more latitude now than before.  But few architects would want to risk their successful reputation by doing something way outside the box (or mermaid).

I do have one map on my desk right now that would be REALLY different.  But, I'm not sure if the client is ready for it or not, and that's an equally important factor in this equation.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 05:29:04 PM by Tom_Doak »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2005, 07:21:45 PM »
Adam:

Ever since answering earlier, I've been trying to think of ways you could build something really "out there".  I haven't come up with too many:

a really good reversible course [has been tried a few times]
a bunkerless course
a course with only 14 holes or some other such number [the NLE course I most wish I had played is not Lido, but the original seven at Blackheath]
a really good par 67 [there are a few, but none in America]

On this plan I'm looking at, I would really like to try and make it look like no one had built anything at all, and they were just gang-mowing the entire course where it wasn't open sand -- like some of the Harry Rountree paintings in Darwin's book, or like Westward Ho!  But this particular course would be the centerpiece of a resort, and I'm not sure how the "retail golfers" would feel about that.  It might go right over their heads!

Surely, someone on here has some new ideas for true diversity?  Or do you really believe it's all been built already?

Paul Payne

Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2005, 07:38:04 PM »
Tom,

I read your second response and it did remind me of a bunkerless course I've played. It was the River course at Huntsville on the RTJ trail in Alabama.

I played it years ago and at the time I never really thought mush about course architecture, I just played then. I had thought the course was very challenging and visually attractive. The fairways were relatively narrow with a good amount of water in play. They also had a lot of undulation as well as the greens so my opinion was it required a fair amount of good shotmaking to play well.

Since my visit however I have heard nothing but bad comments about that course (from golfers). Everything from bland to "tricked up". I have never heard one positive comment from players who had been there.

It is possible your comment about a bunkerless course is right. Even though the course will never be a top 100 contender, I'm not sure it deserves the lack of enthusiasm it recieves. It may be the us golfers are just programmed to respond to bunkering on many levels and when we don't get them we rebel. If true, this would possibly have implications on many innovations one could apply to a course.  

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2005, 07:51:30 PM »
I think the Big Old World philosophy is alive and well on this site. Lots of people think of everyone on here as strict minimalists, but I don’t see it. I think mostly we are much more open to new ideas than the average golf fan. Many here don’t like the cookie-cutter courses that were built over the last few decades.

There is a thinking if you are against the manufactured courses that were built, then therefore you must be a minimalist.

Generally I like courses that fit in with their environment better than courses where the holes look as if they were just dropped there. But I think if someone where to build a great 14 hole course or do some strange routing or something other than the standard par-72 course it will find champions on this site.

The designers usually championed on this site are championed because they are trying different things. These are the ones pushing the envelope. They have gone beyond the target golf courses of the last few decades and built courses that require a variety of different shots. The designers who have a style that are forced onto every site are generally less appreciated here than they are in the rest of the golf world.

The golden-agers are celebrated here because they did push the envelope, not because they were minimalists.

Dan King
Quote
Diversification is for big companies, not little companies like myself. I stick with something I know - Golf.
 --Lee Trevino

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2005, 09:35:09 PM »
Tom:

Perhaps Strantz was joking with you. While I've never seen the site plan or topography to make much of an intelligent comment, I would think Strantz pushed the envelope to the extreme there and in my opinion, it works extremely well.

If you or someone built that course in Florida in my area, it would be very successful. We have soooo much flat ground here, but plenty of sand to push around.

That's one of my beefs with minimialism, it excludes doing something like that on a flat site, and that's why I think Dye did such a great job at Whistling Straits.

Take that as a challenge!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 09:35:51 PM by cary lichtenstein »
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Adam_F_Collins

Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2005, 10:36:18 PM »
Tom D:

I think I started a thread when I first joined this site called "Double-Ended Holes" and got no response...

I think one could work a 'loop' of three or four holes in where they return to the same general location so that they could be built as double-enders. (By 'loop' I mean a few holes like 8, 9 and 10 on Bandon Trails - just looking at the routing, you could make those three double-enders and basically add three holes to the same corridor). I think there are some really interesting possibilities there. And I imagine that it would be especially fun/challenging to design them well.

I believe Tom McBroom did a bunkerless course called Hockley Valley - it had some good holes - I seem to remember it as being bunkerless - but maybe not...

I have done sketches for a par three made up of only perfect circles Green, tees, bunkers, etc) which I think could work quite well and look quite beautiful (but cerainly not natural).

What about using a section of beach which can be carried, but if it isn't (and the tide is low enough) the sand can be played out of again  - (probably occurs in several places)

I'm also interested in situations where you really can't go directly at the green at all - you have to use the ground around it to hold it.

This thread started with Tom Paul's idea of a hole which was simply a huge open expanse along a ridge - whose fairway might be extremely wide - with no bunkers or hazards at all - just an immense, open expanse of natural terrain with nothing in particular to aim at - and nothing in particular to avoid. Yet I imagine that this would only be a first impression - there would be subtlties which revealed themselves as you played the hole - better places to be, better angles to hold the green from, worse places to miss - but nothing would jump up and bark at you. You'd have to search it out yourself, and think. This type of hole, if used just once on a course, might be very intersesting.

It's funny, but it might be nice to just think of crazy ideas and list them seriously for discussion once in a while and not worry about how far out it is - because it gets you thinking in ways you wouldn't normally do.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 10:52:08 PM by Adam_Foster_Collins »

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2005, 08:53:03 AM »
A course without par, neither for each hole or the course.... Only the course record is posted...

Some might say that you could do that anywhere, putting a par to a hole influence the design of everybody... size of the green vs length etc...

You could built some 265 yards hole with huge green, 450 yards with a small green...

I think it will open up the routing possibility since you won't mind built 3 long holes or 3 short  (120 to 300) holes  

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2005, 09:06:27 AM »
Adam:  I'll try to respond to some of your ideas with examples I know of.

I think I started a thread when I first joined this site called "Double-Ended Holes" and got no response...  (Mike Keiser actually suggested that we build a green near the 13th tee at Pacific Dunes so that hole would be double-ended.  I thought it might be distracting feature to have on the most spectacular natural hole on the golf course, but it was the start of conceptualizing The Sheep Ranch.)

I think one could work a 'loop' of three or four holes in where they return to the same general location so that they could be built as double-enders. (By 'loop' I mean a few holes like 8, 9 and 10 on Bandon Trails - just looking at the routing, you could make those three double-enders and basically add three holes to the same corridor). I think there are some really interesting possibilities there. And I imagine that it would be especially fun/challenging to design them well.

I believe Tom McBroom did a bunkerless course called Hockley Valley - it had some good holes - I seem to remember it as being bunkerless - but maybe not...  (I think you're right on that one.  The best bunkerless course by far is Royal Ashdown Forest in England, where the "royal forest" designation prohibits man-made features, including sand bunkers.  Mostly, though, bunkerless courses are low-end places which can't afford them.)

I have done sketches for a par three made up of only perfect circles Green, tees, bunkers, etc) which I think could work quite well and look quite beautiful (but cerainly not natural).  (Certainly not!)

What about using a section of beach which can be carried, but if it isn't (and the tide is low enough) the sand can be played out of again  - (This is the first hole at Machrihanish, see the "favorite first holes" thread for a picture.)

I'm also interested in situations where you really can't go directly at the green at all - you have to use the ground around it to hold it.  (I agree that this is cool and very rarely done.  The 12th at White Bear Yacht Club is one of the best I've seen at this ... the green falls too hard away from you, so you have to bank in the approach off a shoulder at either side.)

This thread started with Tom Paul's idea of a hole which was simply a huge open expanse along a ridge - whose fairway might be extremely wide - with no bunkers or hazards at all - just an immense, open expanse of natural terrain with nothing in particular to aim at - and nothing in particular to avoid. Yet I imagine that this would only be a first impression - there would be subtlties which revealed themselves as you played the hole - better places to be, better angles to hold the green from, worse places to miss - but nothing would jump up and bark at you. You'd have to search it out yourself, and think. This type of hole, if used just once on a course, might be very intersesting.  (That's a tough one for me.  Most architects would prefer to identify one or two favorable routes and accent them, instead of not making a decision on their own.  I don't think you could do this for one hole without it being panned ... you'd have to do the entire course that way, as I was talking about on the map I'm looking at now.)

Philippe:  Par is only in your mind.  If you can keep it way in back, you can design everything you talked about.  Just be prepared for some people to look at the scorecard and complain, without even having seen the golf holes!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2005, 09:28:07 AM »
Tom

Don't you think the 4th at Pennard offers a wide open tee shot?  I know many don't like this hole because it is so vague from the tee.  Sure, there is a favoured side as you suggest is likely, but it doesn't mean that a "go for it attitude" can't be adopted from the wrong side of the fairway.  In any case, I really enjoy playing this hole because the desired driving area does change depending on the wind.

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark Bourgeois

Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2005, 09:36:26 AM »
Tom D: regarding the use of beach, the approach shot to the 6th at San Lorenzo in Portugal offers the option of a sometime recovery from "outside the line of play": this option is available only at low tide, and it's not a beach but a footpath / waste area. Plus, it's not really incorporated into the design, it's more like a bonus / deus ex machina.

The idea of an imposed set of design rules on a terrain obviously has succeeded, but I have always wondered what a "random" course, expanding on the idea of the hole described by Tom Paul, would play like.

I think the key to making it interesting would be that, despite many potential routes to the green, if the golfer failed to execute, he would pay a penalty.

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCA - How much diversity are we really comfortable with?
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2005, 10:24:37 AM »
One course in Québec (a 9-hole affair) has fairways (about 30 yards wide) with rock surfaces (on fairly regular planes) on both sides on some holes... the course is shorttish and most people are playing for position with irons of tees... but with 3 or 4 holes to play in the club championship and being 4 or 5 back, it could be cool to try to hit skippers on the rocks and try to go extra distance..

As far as reversible course, we play backward golf at my home course every once in a while, it's always fun.. even if there are some stretch of woods to fly over... definitely not straightforward golf, but it tests your skills

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back