How GCA's analysts look at architecture

[TEPaul]

Seems to me our inhouse architectural analysts (the Treehouse) have vastly different ways of looking at architecture's quality and also architecture's strategies!

I would say there are those that like holes and courses that have all kinds of tricky and nuancy ways of potentially making the same number and then there are those that like holes and courses that are quite obviously high demand!

There are also those that appear to almost expect that architecture require them to have demands placed on them specifically on every incremental shot and then there are those that seemed satisfied with holes that may appear amorphous or even easy in spots but may have a subtle but powerful architectural "collect" or "pay off" factor to them somehow.

I have no real idea but in the group that seems to appreciate the high demand type of architecture I would put Ran Morrissett at the head of the list! Maybe followed by Doak, Matt Ward, Vostinak etc.

At the other end of the spectrum of those that seems to like architecture that is trickier, more nuancy, less straight forward and less overtly demanding I would put me at the head of the list maybe followed by Pat Mucci, Naccarato, Cirba, Shackelford etc.

The others I just don't know that well and have never played with but it would be interesting to know how they look at architecture this way.

If you don't know what I'm talking about I would put it this way: Some might prefer architecture that is really good but overtly demanding that might be a 6900yd par 70 (like Shinnecock) and others would prefer a course that was also great architecture but like a 6500yd par 72 or even 73 (like NGLA)!

Which do you like? Obviously the distance you hit the ball has a lot to do with it but if possible try to stay away from that in your preference and analysis.

[John_Conley]

It is easier for me to describe what I don't like than it is to describe what I do.

I don't get too hung up on par or length as long as I get to hit different clubs into the greens, am allowed to choose my route to the green on at least a couple holes, and have the chance to play recovery shots if I stray.

If a hole looks like it could have been designed by a non-golfer with a two hour primer on how the game is played... it'll be too bland for my tastes.  Surprisingly, a lot of good players like that kind of hole because the task is so clearly defined they don't have to think.

[TEPaul]

So then what kind of distinction in quality or personal preference would you make between a hole like #18 Merion and #1 Merion! On the first I don't know how much thinking you really have to do! It's pretty obvious you have to hit a great drive or your screwed! The second shot is not so obvious but fairly clear cut.

But on #1 you have a ton of subtle risk/reward factors both on the tee and how your tee shot choice connects to all the various risk/reward factors of the second shot choices because of the tee shot choice---a much less obvious hole--probably more of a thinker's hole!

[John_Conley]

Doyen:

I have not played Merion.  From what I've heard it embodies good design.  You say that hole #1 is an example of a "thinker's hole", so I reckon I'd like it if there are a few more examples like that.

The original 18 holes at Bunker Hills or the Magnolia Course at Walt Disney World are BLAND BLAND BLAND, yet a lot of people - amazingly including Ron Whitten on the latter - like them.

[Jamie_Duffner]

TEPaul,

As someone who grew up on Long Island and played most of his golf on the Black, you might think I'd go with the Ran/Redanman group.  I have ardently defended the Black and the brutish game it requires, but I don't think that's why I like it.  What the course taught me is angles and positioning, lines of play, not putting , actually I jest.  The course made me think!  I find that I really enjoy the less heralded holes, 2 despite the green, 6, 11, and 14.  Although 4 and 5 are terrific.  So when I reflect on your post, I think I go with the Tommy/Shack group, but in the end, make me think.  Doesn't Shinneccok and NGLA require it?  Garden City too?  

I suppose it depends on your game.  Matt and Bill are big, big hitters.  Tommy has a legendary short game, doesn't that have something to do with it?  

Next Friday, I'm playing Garden City in the morning with my Dad and Uncle (who is a member), and then we're heading over to Bethpage, the contrast should be interesting and I really look forward to making the comparison.  How's that for a good day. Topped off with a steak and a single malt

[A_Clay_Man]

I am probably the least likely to find something I don't like. Even if the hole is straightforward there is bound to be some feature I believe makes it interesting. As Gib said after playing the back at PG, "It doesnt have to get any better than that"

But taking holes individually is one thing and puting them together is another.

Also, If you wouldn't mind, define your term "high demand" a little better. I always got the impression that Ran didn't care for stuff that was high demand as I would define it. I do like the holes and courses that allow me to pick my strategy depending on pin placement and my ball flight prefernce. Any thing that is one dimensional like the old fifth at Pebble was my nemesis.

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul:
In trying to analyze your question I don't place a real emphasis on par or even the distance.  The key to me is whether or not the architecture demands you to think.  Are there various options? Will the selection of the option have risk/reward consequences? While there may be the obvious is it subtle and you may be misunderstanding what is really in front of you.  I'm not sure I call this trickery but it would demand experience and learning.  The 6900 par 70 Shinnecock vs Merion.  Not sure the distance or the par really changes things.
Cheers
Dave Miller

[THuckaby2]

Oh Great Doyen, isn't this all summed up in which one prefers between Shinnecock and National?  To me that's always been the great divider, and shows what one prefers in a golf course clearly and distinctly.

TH

[AndyI]

I prefer a course where I learn something new--either about the course itself or about my game--every time I play it.  That type of discovery is what puts a smile on my face, even on days when I'm not playing well (which is far too many days ).  So I guess I'd classify myself in the second category you outlined ("more nuancy, less straightforward").  I think that the subtle features  found on what I consider to be these types of courses provide a great deal of variety in shotmaking requirements as well as strategic options once you have learned and understood them.  To me, that's a lot of fun.

[Ed_Baker]

TEP;

VERY interesting question, trying to seperate personal preference from the cerebral pragmatic evaluation.

I think the "brutes" of the game are just as interesting to play and analyze as the "quirkies". Both have their place in the game and the best examples of both breeds is what this website is all about. But the vast majority of us are equally aware that when we step up to the first tee on one of the brutes that even with our "A" game we are hopelessly overmatched. On the "6500 yard,par 72" an exceptional day of skill can produce career rounds or at least a round several strokes below your personal average. The brute is more likely to produce a round several strokes higher than your average, the real question is "is the enjoyment of each equal?" I would say that for GCAers the answer is yes, IF we are playing for the sake of playing and just experiencing the course and its architectural brilliance, overwhelmingly yes! But.... put the word "competition" in the mix and I'm sure personal preference will cloud the issue in a heartbeat.

Would I prefer to play 4 competitive rounds at Shinnecock in the low to mid 90's as a 7 handicap rather than 4 rounds in the mid to high 70's at my home course? No. With my ability, a great round at Shinnecock would be in the 82-84 range, would that cloud my evaluation of the golf course,NO. Can I really seperate my preference from the architecture, no not honestly, nobody wants to play a course that just beats their brains in everyday, but when asked about Shinnecock my reply would be it doesn't get any better. So I guess that's what seperates the GCA guys from the casual golfer, we can still be awed by the architectural brilliance of the brutes because of what they are, and what they mean to the game and its history, even while they are beating us up!

[TEPaul]

Ed;

Very fine way to look at it!

[RJ_Daley]

As a high handicap player of inconsistent shot making ability that ranges from 16-20 over the last few years, and a person who at least makes the effort to study GCA, I would say I favor the quirky or that architecture that presents clever course design.  I prefer the natural use of land that must take into account the flaws and oddities of land to produce a clever golf course design.  But, I also like the manufactured GCA that is well in tune with golf strategy and design for the enjoyment of the many levels of players, yet incorporates clever/quirky ideas.  Of course I'd put C&C and their many understudies and associates into the natural category that copes with quirk, and CB, Seth and Langford into the latter manufactured quirk meisters.  Also, Ross presents a course that is forgiving off the tee and allows you to get around the green frequently just as efficeintly as the high skill player, and then the fun begins.  Sometimes in these above instances, luck and local knowledge helps alot.  Mac's Crystal Downs also falls into that natural land, quirk category where you are always entertained and sometimes lucky or hit it or putt it the way you want to once in a while.  You always go away entertained, whether you won, scored well, or just scored a couple on the quirky stuff that leaves a satisfied feeling.

Why I lean in that direction as a high handicap-inconsistent player is because playing matches on such courses always leaves a player like me a fighting chance to recognize the quirks and potentially win holes or at least tie a lower-high skill player.  On a brute course like Medinah#3, or Whistling Straits, BWR, and the likes, I must be a consistent brute off the tees and then follow up with second shot execution more often than my opponent, and once you go wrong, you really go wrong.  Brutes just keep pounding you and pounding you and you leave beat-up.  Clever design entertains you and regardess of results, you return optimistically at least thinking you can do better.  Brutes leave little doubt in your mind that you will never play well there and you will retire from the course each time exhausted, frustrated and depressed.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Believe me NGLA has a good number of holes that have plenty of strategy for the 290 yard driver! They aren't the same strategies as the 240yd driver but many of the holes have plenty of risk for the 290yd driver--not all of them but many of them. We can easily go through the holes and explain which are which.

But "skill" is not at all exclusive of "strategy"--not at NGLA anyway! If a long hitter wants to be rewarded hitting it 290 at NGLA he sure better hit it where he's supposed to or he too will get screwed. In other words skill and strategy go hand in hand there for the 290yd driver just like they do for the 240yd driver.

Ironically the golf course that seems to be devoid of its extraordinary "strategy" for the 290yd driver is TOC!! If you can hit or fly a driver 290yds there it seems pretty clear from both Daly and Woods that you can constantly just fly it over all the strategy on the course!!

[TEPaul]

I guess it all depends on how you look at "strategies"! I mean certainly theoretically the long player always has more "strategies" available to him because he "can" hit the ball 290 if he wants to but the 240 hitter isn't able to do that!!

The question and the point on strategic holes is are there risk/reward factors out there for the 290 player at that distance that make him weigh his options (strategies) of trying to hit the ball 290 all the time or not! If a course is such that a 290 player can hit the ball 290 all day long with virtually impunity then obviously that's what he'll do--not much strategy there!

But if there're holes were he cannot do that with impunity then you have a course with some strategies that can be  equally meaningful both for 240 and 290 players. NGLA has a lot of that but again not everywhere. Holes like #7, #8, #10, #18 are not that risky for someone who hits the ball that far off the tee but the other holes can be dangerous if he hits it that far off the tee. Holes like #1, #2, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17 can be very dangerous if he doesn't combine distance with accuracy and that's a very meaningful "strategic" context for him!

But on every hole on the golf course the 240 player has his own strategies, and his own unique risk/rewards some of which aren't even as risky as the 290 player (which of course the 290 player can choose if he wants to) but always his risk in equal competition is his inabiltiy to produce those extra 50yds!

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

In my opinion the long driver at NGLA may not hit driver with virtual impunity on the par 5s but very close to it!! That's one of the reasons I've said for a tour pro NGLA could make #5, #7, #18 into demanding par 4s for players like that! #9 for the long player, as it is, is also too easy on the second half of that hole and something should be done on the second half to make it more complex for the long driver! On a hole like #9 a really long driver probably wouldn't even use a driver because he really might not have to to reach the green in two!!

But why do some of the par 4s have complexities for the long driver? Good question, I don't really know WHY MacDonald designed it that way, he just did! As to why some of them can be very strategic for the long driver, that's no problem to explain!

Now if you take a course like Pine Valley, it has loads of complexity for a long driver who wants to hit a driver all the time. As to why exactly that is and why it happened, that I think I do know. It's because there are so many cross features on that course that were often designed for the player of yesteryear to deal with on second shots (particularly after less than well hit first shots) that today they actually come into play for a long hitter on his first shot not to get in if he really does hit it too far off the tees.

This is a very interesting characteristic of Pine Valley but of course many will say it takes the driver out of a long player's hands too much! That's true, but since it does it really makes him think how to play the course.

I've seen this in fact. Playing a guy like Jay Sigel there is very interesting! I can hit the driver there almost everywhere if I want to but he certainly can't! It takes a ton more thought on that course off the tees for Sigel than it does for me!

Maybe he isn't using the driver that much but it still requires a lot of thought on his part (more than me). I would call that "strategic", wouldn't you?

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

But I should add with Pine Valley that there actually is something they could do today maintenance-wise that in my opinion may put the driver back in the hands of the long driver who's very aggressive if he wants to use it. Not on every hole but on many more than one would at first think!!

I've noticed that in very limited instances they may be starting to do exactly that!

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Oh great Doyen, I do not look at par or length except in relation to other more important variables. I look at the land, how it is used, the routing and how natural the flow of the holes are. Are all the 18 holes solid golf holes that fit togther in harmony with the land. I tend to like or give design credit to strategic shotmakers courses over penal or brute strength courses. Yet, the above brute strength and penal do have a place in the overall balance of a truely great course. I just prefer it to be minimalized as compared to holes of a more strategic kind. I generally like course that require the so called all the shots in the bag, but what one really means are over the course of 18 holes the course allows for the better option will include knockdown shots, shaping the ball both ways, the ground game, strong power and finese, great variety of short game shots and diverse greens with contouring that is challenging a gives lots off options.  I like and look for classic design features like a barritz green, punch bowls, one front to back etc. There is no magic formular for the holes, but I like the balance that the classic short, redan, eden, long give with a 3 shot 5, 2 medium risk reward  par 5's and one hight risk reward that can be reached in 2 with consequnses. I generally like the one drivable 4 with 3 other character shorter 4's and 4 strong par 4's. the balance of dogleg lefts and right, uphill and down etc working with the land. My course if and when the moeny is raised will have a wonderful Lido driven par 5 finishing hole that offers drama and options. I like the front nine to be more power oriented and the back more risk rewardy to play to match play aspects of the game.

[brad miller]

Tom, what might that be??

[TEPaul]

Brad:

What might what be?

[brad_miller]

Tom, your comment above about PV.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I have never once considered myself an analyst. Maybe I should?

Well, the last six posts in this thread have once again proven that everyone can doubt and second guess each and everyone's opinions. For me, this seems to be the greatest source of where we misread what exactly golf architecture is all about.

The easist way to analyze any golf architecture is to walk, not play the Old Course and both see and learn how the natural undulations dictate play and bring not only the element of luck back to the game, but also produce fun and excitement.

I think placing a certain amount of emphasis of how a course is compared to one's own golf game is the surest way NOT to properly judge golf architecture from every level. One should study every aspect of the game for all levels, as well as look in great detail, the essence of fate, largess of the surroundings and maxmizing it to its fullest, adherance to the strictest raw principles of nature--were perfection is found in the imperfection and where the lines of nature are not straight, nor follow any non-evolved man-made feature, which ultimately doesn't thrill or excite. (containment mounding for one.)

Perfection is the wildest and deepest of bunkers that look as if a tornado created them. I could probably run into the night typing-up featues on certain courses that totally spell out a natural quirkiness that creates fun and exciting play. Things like the unique natural punch bowl green of Lu Lu #8 or for that matter, the way any certain hole just fits the land perfectly, yet is totally deceptive for its target.

This is my major complaint with so many modern golf architects. They just cannot realize/will not realize/do not ever want to realize how much the use of natural features with minor refinement have to offer. It is virtually impossible to create a perfection from desk top, convey it to shapers in the field who simply do not maintain any kind of passion for the art let alone even understand the need to learn more, to further excel in their craft.

Let us look at the top 10 in Golfweek's America's Best Modern Courses--

1. Sand Hills Golf Club, Mullen, Neb.
Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore (1995) (p)
2. Pacific Dunes*, Bandon, Ore.
Tom Doak (2000) (r)
3. Whistling Straits, Mosel, Wis.
Pete Dye (1997) (r)
4. Bandon Dunes, Bandon, Ore.
David Kidd (1999) (r)
5. Pete Dye Golf Club, Bridgeport, W.Va.
Pete Dye (1994) (p)
6. The Honors Course, Ooltewah, Tenn.
Pete Dye (1983) (p)
7. Shadow Creek Golf Course, North Las Vegas, Nev.
Tom Fazio and Steve Wynn (1990) (r)
8. Muirfield Village Golf Club, Dublin, Ohio
Jack Nicklaus and Desmond Muirhead (1974) (p)
9. The Golf Club, New Albany, Ohio
Pete Dye (1967) (p)
10. Cuscowilla Golf Club, Greensboro, Ga.
Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore (1998) (p)

At least 8 out of the 10 are golf courses where close personal attention was paid by the designers, where they actually particpated in the construction of their own designs. These numbers don't lie. This is what it takes to build a GREAT modern golf course.

Another thing as far as looking and studying GREAT golf architecture, or at least the ability to understand EXACTLY what it is, by reading and studying in person and in photos for the proper interpretation of the works of classic golf architects from Golf's Golden Age.

An age that really did exist, whether certain modern architects want to admit it or not.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Shivas,
Please remember that this is all in my own personal opinion.

I just think that too many people think of thier own personal playing style and somehow can't visualize every different aspect of shots that can be played. I think ultimately it has everything to do with getting around how one plays their own game and literally putting blinders on, and not being able to visualize every other aspect of others.

I have seen architects do this as well as panelists from every magazine ranking.

Without naming names as not to start a riot, I know of a hole at a course where the required shot is a high-spinner of some 160 yards to a very shallow, well-bunkered green. For the low-handicapper, this is usually not a problem to hit to this green because most low-handicappers are using clubs that can handle the shot and can stop it on a dime. For most mid to high-handicappers this shot is going to made with a mid-iron club which as you may know doesn't hold nearly as much, especially since most mid to high handicappers are just hoping to hit the ball let alone know how to make the grooves on the club work. The result is a green that is close to impossible to hold for that genre of golfer, but an easy one for the good player. The higher-handicapped player is then further penalized by having to either play from sand both short or long of the green.

What is lost is the mentality of easy birdie/hard par, which as you know, a lot of great designers based a lot of their hole designs on.