[Matt_Cohn]

I was sketching some holes today when I started thinking about two different philosophies of design.

The "Enabler"
In one philosophy, the architect presents difficult shots but helps the player to play them. For example, if the ground slopes right-to-left, the fairway or green will likely angle that way as well. On a 250 yard par-3, the green may be narrow, but it won't have a huge rise right in front of the green. If the fairway slopes to the right, the fairway will expand out on the right side (although the angle might be bad from there). If there's severe trouble right, you'll have a bail-out left.

The "Contrarian"
In the other philosophy, the architect specifically avoids helping the player in order to add challenge and difficulty. Perry Maxwell courses come to mind. Prevailing wind to the left? OK, let's build a dogleg right. Downhill lies in the fairway? OK, let's put a bunker in front of the green. If a fairways slopes to the right, we'll put a bunker on the right edge of the landing area. Instead of putting hazards near where the player wants to hit the ball, the architect uses hazards to block off those areas entirely.

Do these distinctions make sense? Is one school of thought "better" when done well?

[TEPaul]

Matt:

In my opinion, golf design needs both and more simply to avoid any kind of "standardization" in design that golfers may come to recognize, and worst yet, expect.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

It makes sense, although I try to be an "enabler" whenever possible, but the land and wind don't usually line up 100% of the time, so I follow the land, thus becoming a "contrarian."

I have given this a lot of thought over the years, and generally, I don't know why a gca would purposely go out of his way to set up a shot that most likely would be nearly impossible to play, for the wrong reasons.  If I get into a situtation where the shot signals conflict, I generally give a bigger target, whereas I can make a "proper" shot more diffcult if the signals align, and thus make the target a bit smaller, if I feel there should be more difficulty.

Examples include a hook favoring green with a pond or OB on the right, which is very uncomfortable to play.  Of course, wind is never predictable, so things happen.  However, I disagree with those that say "you can't predict wind" and as a result, ignore it in design in favor of other factors.

Just MHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I've sometimes been called a contrarian, because I just barely belong to the generation that learned to "question authority," and I took it to heart.

However, by your definitions I am certainly an enabler.  I will occasionally design something against the grain just to be unpredictable, but 90% of my stuff follows the wind or the slope.  (As Jeff rightly points out, you can't have both.)

A few years ago I played a course which must have been designed by a contrarian ... on many holes there was a single greenside bunker, but it was placed exactly where I would otherwise want to land my approach shot.  By the time I was done I wanted to go to the designer's office and kick him in the shins.  I can't believe anyone would do that as their style consistently, or they most likely wouldn't get to stay in business for very long.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I have always believed that many gca's just don't know that they are taking away the preferred shot, and do it by accident, rather than on purpose.

Again, just MHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff,

I think that was certainly the case on the course I described.  Probably the bunkers were drawn in the office, and not with somebody standing on-site looking at the approach.  Wind wasn't even really a factor there; just if the hole was leaning right-to-left on the approach, they would put a bunker front right-center and leave no fairway on the entrance.

Maybe that's a third style Matt left out:  "The Ignorant"

[GDStudio]

I can't believe anyone would do that as their style consistently, or they most likely wouldn't get to stay in business for very long.

Oh how I wish this was the case.  

[Sean_A]

Jeff,

I think that was certainly the case on the course I described.  Probably the bunkers were drawn in the office, and not with somebody standing on-site looking at the approach.  Wind wasn't even really a factor there; just if the hole was leaning right-to-left on the approach, they would put a bunker front right-center and leave no fairway on the entrance.

Maybe that's a third style Matt left out:  "The Ignorant"

Tom

I see this sort of design style all the time.  In fact, the last time I saw it that really bugged me was #18 at Brora.  They have a bunker frontish right which blocks the natural drop down from the right.  As it is a blind landing area to hit this spot to use the slope I think that is enough defense - instead all golfers are forced into the aerial route due to the steep incline short of the green.  I think more links are slapping in odd bunkers here and there to tighten courses.  My last trip back to Conwy was a shocker!

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

If that office did a grading plan, they should be able to know which was going to be the high side.......However that happens, it sure shows that design is a 3D operation, and not just the 2D you see in books about fw bunker left, greenside bunker right.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()