If we regard it sooo...much...why then?

[Scott Witter]

Maybe APPRECIATE it is the better word,  Has there not been more Penal golf courses designed and built?

Why hasn't C&C, Doak, the Jones Bro's, that 'cutting edge guy' Cowley, or the 'ever provocative' Mr. Young, or the 'crafty and witty' Mr. Brauer, whoever XYZ architect brought this more to the front of the line, even if only once?  It seems to many on this forum at least and of course to the members at Oakmont CC, that we have learned, or accepted this design approach as one with considerable merit.  So why then, but don't just offer the business downfalls and marketing pitfalls of such work, look deeper--are there other factors that have really made this style a 'thing of the past'?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

Ever hire a new young guy and let him go to have fun a bit?  I have, and my office has designed some of the toughest courses ever. Its just that they don't get out of the paper stage.

I have given it a lot of deep thought, and I am simply not a "tough golf" guy.  After the lectures I have given those newbies in that regard, its hard to turn around and then design really tough on purpose.

For that matter, I am convinced that for better players, the Augusta theory of letting them hang themselves by giving a preferred option and a really, really, safe one probably does as much scorecard damage as a bunch of hazards.

That said, I do have two courses with the top course and slope rating in their respective states (KS and MN) where the client specifically asked for a tough, tournament test. In the case of the Quarry in MN, the site sort of lent itself to that type of design, as well.  That is, if you call 30 foot deep mining scars with a bit of sand in them as "penal" bunkers.  Most do!

[paul cowley]

Good question Scott.....which in trying to answer, begets another...."why were these type of courses built in the first place?"....oh I know the consensus answer, but really, why build courses like this that have such limited appeal.

I haven't played Oakmont or Pine Valley....two courses that I guess exemplify Penal type design, but I would have a hard time putting their type punishment out for the masses....which is the audience I try most to reach.

I agree with Jeff in that designing tough is easy....but I guess I don't have the conscience for it. I much prefer 'stick and carrot' strategies.

I think these type of courses will continue to be built on occasion....by the rare resorts or private groups that find this tough test/high penalty form of play challenging.

And that they will continue to be as uncommon in the future as they have been in the past.

[Scott Witter]

As expected, not many replies...too nice outside and a grand holiday, but also the answers are predictable, not being critical fellas .  So I guess then we leave it that on the rare occasion, they can work, but of course, in more modern times don't we all want to comply with the masses and help the owners ring the cash register and have the golfers 'get more carrots'

[Brad Klein]

No, Scott, some of us are working. Now go check your in-box.

BSK

[Scott Witter]

Brad:

No compassion here... and I haven't missed a beat with my in box as I TOO  have been at work all day as well

[paul cowley]

OK Scott ....are you trying to tell us that you have something  penal in the hopper?

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

We are building a much more difficult course at Wicked Pony in Oregon than is normal for us.  I don't know if I would choose to use the word "penal", but there are big carries over the native scrub on many holes, and a couple of forced carries on second shots too.  It's not particularly narrow in the landing areas, but not as wide as a lot of our courses, either.

The client is a good player and this is the first of three courses in his development, so we agreed that he could afford to build a course that was designed to attract "the better player".

Most clients ask the architect for everything at once -- the old "difficult for the best players but playable for the average golfer" mantra -- and the general result are a lot of courses that are don't quite accomplish either end of the spectrum.  It's nice to have a client once in a while who will let you push it toward either end; we've enjoyed the ones who just want it playable just as much.

[Mike_Young]

I have never been asked to design aUS Open course  and most of the courses I design are for a membership or owner that wants his players to enjoy the product...most would not enjoy Oakmont even if they liked it because they were playing it.....many ould quit if they had to play it everyday.....JMO

[Joe Hancock]

I have never been asked to design aUS Open course  and most of the courses I design are for a membership or owner that wants his players to enjoy the product...most would not enjoy Oakmont even if they liked it because they were playing it.....many would quit if they had to play it everyday.....JMO

Mike,

Is that the basic same answer you(or any other architect) would give to Forrest for not building something "new"?

Joe

[paul cowley]

Joe ....whats new about penal?

Forrests question is a hard one to answer because its similar to asking "how come there is nothing radically new in car design?.....its just the same old re hashed stuff, with a little 'new' sprinkled here and there as the technology evolved....but still basically dependant on the four wheel formula pioneered over 100 years ago".

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The penal school of golf spells death to the spirit of independence, life and freedom which we are all seeking, and which we should find of all places in our recreations.--Max Behr

Excerpted from Geoff Shackelford & Mike Miller's The Art of Golf Design.

[Mike_Young]

I have never been asked to design aUS Open course  and most of the courses I design are for a membership or owner that wants his players to enjoy the product...most would not enjoy Oakmont even if they liked it because they were playing it.....many would quit if they had to play it everyday.....JMO

Mike,

Is that the basic same answer you(or any other architect) would give to Forrest for not building something "new"?

Joe

Without thinking much I would say yes Joe.

[paul cowley]

The penal school of golf spells death to the spirit of independence, life and freedom which we are all seeking, and which we should find of all places in our recreations.--Max Behr

Excerpted from Geoff Shackelford & Mike Miller's The Art of Golf Design.

Thanks Tommy.
The more I hear of Behr....the more I feel we are kindred.
The problem lies in that I have to rely on interpreters.

[Phil_the_Author]

Could it actually be something as simple as we're just a bunch of wussies today?

[Joe Hancock]

Mike and Paul,

I was coming more from a "customer service" perspective. Mike's answer was centered on what the client and the intended golf population would want the course to be.  I think that is the right priority, by the way.

So...if no clients come forward to any architect and request a penal brute of a course, how and why would anyone build one? To me, it's the same answer to Forrest's question about breaking new ground, design wise: no one has commissioned an architect to do so.

Joe

[paul cowley]

Mike and Paul,

I was coming more from a "customer service" perspective. Mike's answer was centered on what the client and the intended golf population would want the course to be.  I think that is the right priority, by the way.

So...if no clients come forward to any architect and request a penal brute of a course, how and why would anyone build one? To me, it's the same answer to Forrest's question about breaking new ground, design wise: no one has commissioned an architect to do so.

Joe

True Joe, true......and my point is from the designer perspective....I wouldn't build a penal style course unless the client is on board and understands and dictates the program.
I would love the opportunity to make a course as tough as it can be.

This newness stuff that Forrest has been challenging designers with is an altogether different matter.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott,
I found Forrest's question a hard one even to think about, let alone to try to answer. Then came some good posts/ideas on this thread, and on the "what makes courses penal" and Tommy's "rant" threads, and something 'clicked' for me. What do you think of this late-might bit of theorizing/guesswork:

I think we just might be in the midst of a paradigm shift, i.e. a change in some of the basic assumptions that have shaped the thinking about gca for many decades. Like in any art/craft that's based on some fundamental principles, the passage of time has led to an increasing complexity and nuance in the way those principles are understood and put into practice. So, for example, early on Frownes at Oakmont might've said "This is a PENAL golf course" at the same time someone was saying of TOC, "This is a STRATEGIC golf course". But why would we think that a hundred years later we could still be using those concepts in such absolute terms, or that the principles behind those concepts would not have become more nuanced, or that in practice those two poles would not have converged or blended in subtle and complex ways?

In other words, we're exploring your question just at the very time that these types of questions have actually become questions; sort of like the way science started wondering about ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ only when it came to understand that the two concepts were intimately linked. (To the science types here, apologies if I’ve mangled that; feel free to set me straight.)  And if that’s the case, the very ways we discuss (and the questions we ask about) these concepts may have to change. Maybe questions like “what’s new in architecture?” or “why aren’t we building penal courses?” were suitable/appropriate for the old paradigm, but not for this new/emerging one.

Maybe the questions now should be more ‘practical’ ones, ones that recognize that a shift has and is taking place.  I’m terrible at those myself; but on Tommy’s thread I think I was trying to do just that when I asked, basically, this:

“How might the most modern of equipment, technologies and techniques help us to create the kind of nature-dependent golfing “experience” that Max Behr espoused?”      

Anyway, I have no idea if this is relevant to your question, or if it makes any sense at all, Scott….but I thought that you of all people might appreciate the attempt  

Peter

[Scott Witter]

Peter:

You have it IMO and it was Forrest that had me thinking more about new stuff again and Penal architecture came to mind, such that we simply don't see it all that much in its purest form like Oakmont and a handful of others.  So thanks Forrest for making me think

This will not likely come out with polish so be kind...Your whole connection I believe is hitting it on the head...it comes in so many cues and forms I guess with both practical terms, the advancements with equipment technologies...yes Peter, we ARE thinking about it more/differently and thankfully.  The paradigm shift...maybe but I think that is a weaker thread to what is actually going on, but the arts and crafts principles, well then the passage of time is helping us and I am happy to see that we are looking closer under the microscope, each in our own way to hopefully extract someting more from nuances and principles that have guided us for so many years.


Sure, the science anology works fine and I think by simply looking at it again from a different angle with a few more modern tools is giving a better understanding for us, here and now, of what Behr, Ross, other GCA's and the great LA thinkers were considering.

Tom:

I think the scenario presented by your client works and thankfully he is brave enough to do the 'tough' one first.  Many others would likely go with the easier approach at the start and get the cash register ringing and follow with more meat on the bones afterward.  Did the client ask you directly if YOU thought this approach would work when you sat down to discuss the type of course to build first?

Paul:

NO, I wouldn't say so...but an old client who put a project on the shelf for a while has contacted me to discuss a 'different' approach and the site lends itself for a 'tougher' setup.  It is my feeling, however, that he would be making a mistake.  This may, however, give me the opportunity to rearrange the routing to better fit the site.  I just need to do so while leading him to believe that it may fit his model better without beating up the players.  He is a very aggressive personality with strong opinions about the design.