Which approach?

[Joe Hancock]

Great design occurs when nothing more can be added to make it better

or

Great design occurs when nothing more can be taken away to make it better

Examples?

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe
a really great question/discussion point. I hope others pick up on it. For me, I'm going for the easy answer/example:

great design is when nothing more can be taken away to make it better. What more can you take away from TOC to make it better? There's "nothing there" already except places to tee it up and places to putt it out, and in between only hazards that are so natural and natural looking that you can't "take them away" since no one seems to have "put them there" in the first place.

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

JOe, great topic.  Sorry I missed it until now.  I never would have known about it unless I read an OT thread lambasting OT threads.

To respond to your question with a bit of a cop-out, I think the juxtaposition is interesting, but the truly great design is when they are in equalibrium.  Great that nothing more should be added, and great because it exists at the edge of survival where everything that is needed is there and nothing can be taken away.

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

So, it's not an either/ or situation, but both?

Thanks for the response....these are the things that I scratch my head over...not knowing if it really matters, but I'm constanty breaking down my own beliefs and thought processes in an attempt to confirm those thoughts and beliefs as "right and good".

Joe

[TEPaul]

Probably both. As RJ say---an equilibrium.

I think good holes have great strategic concepts and when a great strategic concept on a hole can center around maybe one thing then the architecture should be right on the money.

I'd use the example of CPC's #9 which is pretty much just "found". It probably centers around one thing which is its skinny little diagonal incline green which is surrounded by pretty much what's surrounded it for eons.

[Forrest Richardson]

Joe — I am not certain either (or) is an answer.

In my view — whatever the design problem — the best solution is the one (i) that works, (ii) is pleasing, (iii) is viewed as being smart, and (iv) is often partially unexpected. It is usually simple, but not always. It is usually timeless, but not always.

[Kyle Harris]

I don't believe the two to be connected, necessarily.

There are probably many "great" holes in existance that would stand to have something added to them to add interest, strategic merit or anything. Be it as simple as a new tee box or as complex as a new green.

Furthermore, there can be a lot of "great" holes where removing something like a tee box, bunker, tree etc. would probably add a different flavor to the hole that isn't necessarily better or worse.

Too much of a dichotomy in my opinion.

[Forrest Richardson]

dichotomy...great name for a golf hole.

[Kyle Harris]

dichotomy...great name for a golf hole.

  Split fairway hole?

[Forrest Richardson]

Either that, or the concept for a hole to be a par-4 or par-5 at the choosing of the player. I had one of those, but the course was never built. Need to bring it back someday.