Can you have too much variety?

[Jeff_Brauer]

The brief discussion on the narrow greens topic regarding this caught my attention, and I thought it deserved its own thread.

Reading golf architecture classic books, architects (my favorite book is Thomas, which seems to speak more directly) say that each hole should present a different look and challenge.  

And yet, most golfers are quick to say that "that green wasn't like the rest of them" or similar comments, seemingly wanting "conformity" to a certain size range for greens, bunker style, tee style (rectangular vs free form vs round) on each course.

My feeling is that for most couses, the holes are too much alike, rather than too much different, in play certainly, and in aesthetics probably.

Focusing on play, can we have too much variety?  What is wrong with a course with greens of sizes from 4000-14,000 SF, with perhaps only one tiny tim and one goliath, but with all sizes in between, then some long and skinny, wide and shallow, round, freeform, contours varying from flat to horrendous, etc.

I know Tour players look at a course and see "shots" whereas designer types see "features"; as I describe, but these variations affect play - narrow greens ask a golfer to hit straight, shallow ones ask for distance accuracy, and other types can encourage a run up shot, high spin, tenative vs agressive putting, missing in the wrong spot or right spot, etc.

I could go on, but is variety for variety's sake too much?  Why not get a good dose of different type shots in one round?

[TEPaul]

I don't think it's possible for a course to have too many choices or too much variety. One of the real fascinations to me is that in the entire evolution of golf architect to date no one has really tried to recreate the essence of all golf--the original architectural prototype--TOC!

Why is that? I've never been there but can anyone honestly say, all in all, that place is in any way light on variety?

[tonyt]

Listen to the site. If it moulds you towards a particular seamless style, then go with it. If it invites variety, go with it. Seamless is a good word in this instance. If the various proposed elements of variety are naturally integrated without looking like too much of an effort or handprint, why not?

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff- When I made that same observation, I was having a moment of doubt about Twin Warriors (G. Panks). I have to re-visit soon but one of my first impressions was that there was so much variety. I liked that. Variety, Mostly in green size & shape, hole size & shape & direction. If there was a constant and maybe a teeny tiny criticism it would be that the green contouring was overall flatter than the site could've handled.

One of the disadvantages to literally making 18 holes with nothing in common would be the loss of some sense of style or comfortability (for me).

[paul cowley]

.....i think that when designing a hole ,one needs to create a strategic 'story' that starts at the tee and ends at the green.
  green size, shape,etc. should largely be determined by whats preceeded it ,not a generic formula.
  if ,in the course of 18 holes ,one is able to tell a good story,green variety occurs naturally[and feels natural].
.....at least on memorable courses with a good storyteller.

[texsport]

Great shot variety makes for a memorable course.

Numerous visual features that don't affect shotmaking result in a " looks difficult but plays easy" course. These courses are not memorable for good players. A good example of this, IMHO, is Deacon's Lodge in Brainard, MN.

Texsport

[A_Clay_Man]

I guess it's easy to see the difference in quality since the really good golfers make up what percentage of the total market?

The catch 22 of the golf "business". The majority of revenue isn't from "good" golfers.

So unless you're willing to do the labor of love bit, I feel your pain.

[Mark_Fine]

Variety has lots of definitions.  In my opinion, there is a difference between a "collection of different holes" and a harmonious golf course.  I love a course where every hole is unique, however, the best ones have some common thread that ties them together.  

The Architects Club in NJ is an extreme example.  It is clearly a collection of different golf holes.  It this case it works because that was the objective of the design and it is spelled out clearly on every tee box.  However, you wouldn't normally set out to build a course with so much variety and so many different design styles.