News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Ideas or Execution?
« on: August 28, 2007, 03:42:09 PM »
I think original ideas regarding the design of a golf hole are so rare that they are almost unimportant.  

For example, any architect, and for that matter, any experienced player, understands the concept of a strategic hole where tempting a hazard results in an advantage for the next shot.  The same could be said for a variety of design tricks.

I think the quality of a golf hole largely comes down to how well the architect carried out well known and well worn concepts.

Agree or disagree?  If ideas are important, identify some original ones.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2007, 03:47:19 PM »
Agree!


Aren't they all some variation of the right fairway bunker / left greenside bunker theme?

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2007, 03:57:12 PM »
Disagree!

Your premise is based upon center line design principles.  If you invoke edge play and linear option it fails.  A steady diet of hug the hazard strategems would be boring as hell.  Go play one of DeVries' courses and I bet you can't figure out the base concepts until at least the third time you've played them. That's a compliment by the way!  Further, the execution models should change as the pin location changes in my mind.  Which inturn puts a huge burden on creative green design and feature usage.  Gotta get out of the box.

Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

wsmorrison

Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2007, 04:02:16 PM »
What if the golf course architect sets up the hole where you think carrying a hazard in a corner of a dogleg leaves you the ideal angle into the green when in fact the outside of the dogleg is the ideal location to approach the green?

Other ideas include using perceptual miscues to get the golfer thinking...a dangerous thing for any golfer  ;)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 04:03:42 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2007, 04:03:06 PM »
Disagree!

Your premise is based upon center line design principles.  If you invoke edge play and linear option it fails.  A steady diet of hug the hazard strategems would be boring as hell.  Go play one of DeVries' courses and I bet you can't figure out the base concepts until at least the third time you've played them. That's a compliment by the way!  Further, the execution models should change as the pin location changes in my mind.  Which inturn puts a huge burden on creative green design and feature usage.  Gotta get out of the box.

Cheers!

JT

Jim - I'm not sure what you mean.  I meant the strategic hole as an example only.

Can you show me some examples of original ideas that Devries uses?  

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2007, 04:04:45 PM »
What if the golf course architect sets up the hole where you think carrying a hazard in a corner of a dogleg leaves you the ideal angle into the green when in fact the outside of the dogleg is the ideal location to approach the green?

I know a certain architect that would do this and other fake-outs just to keep the golfer on his toes and keep things from being formulaic.

Would you not agree Wayne that a lot of these holes exist?  I know there are a couple on my course.

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2007, 04:12:37 PM »
Jason,

Mike is great at using undulation and pitch to screw up your basic plan on how to play a hole.  Over at the Mines they have a good 7 holes where the land doesn't reward conventional thinking.  I'm still trying to understand it myself and everytime I play the course the more I get it, and it is good.  The way he used frontal humps in the greens, opened up approach shots for either shaping approaches OR playing from fairway edges is really unique.  I wish I had the vocabulary to better describe it.  Maybe Joe or Mike could chime in and help me out.  We did more angular play at Angels that was predicated on pin position and green complex design which favored fw edge postioning and the use of ground contouring on approach shots, if one was so inclined.  In fact if you looked at an overhead view of a hole sans undulation, you would probably play half the holes dufferently than you would on site.  That last line makes a lot of sense to me and gather what I'm trying to convey.  That is why I'm so against center line thinking.

Hope that helps!  Oh to have a white board...

Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2007, 04:14:49 PM »
They sure were original 75-100 years ago.

I still haven't seen another green like the 1st at Oakmont - unless you count the 10th, which is similar but different!

I sure haven't seen another hole like the 12th at Oakmont.

But I also haven't played many courses. Still, I haven't heard or read about similar holes, either.

In a very broad sense, you are correct, but it's those details that make all the difference (which may be the point you're trying to make).
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2007, 04:19:04 PM »
I think original ideas regarding the design of a garden are so rare that they are almost unimportant.  

For example, any landscape architect, and for that matter, any experienced gardener, understands the concept of a strategic placement of plants results in a beautiful layered scene.  The same could be said for a variety of design tricks.

I think the quality of a garden largely comes down to how well the landscape architect carried out well known and well worn concepts.

Agree or disagree?  If ideas are important, identify some original ones.

Jason,

Do you still believe what you wrote earlier?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2007, 04:19:50 PM »

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2007, 04:26:20 PM »
I think original ideas regarding the design of a garden are so rare that they are almost unimportant.  

For example, any landscape architect, and for that matter, any experienced gardener, understands the concept of a strategic placement of plants results in a beautiful layered scene.  The same could be said for a variety of design tricks.

I think the quality of a garden largely comes down to how well the landscape architect carried out well known and well worn concepts.

Agree or disagree?  If ideas are important, identify some original ones.

Jason,

Do you still believe what you wrote earlier?


Yes.

I'm not sure how the changed wording relates to my premise.  A golf course is something to interact with, not just view.  In any event, I sure haven't seen much orignal ideas with respect to lawns as of late either.

I do see an analogy in art periods or music trends (although I am far from an expert).  The ideas themselves are not that important, it is how you pull them off.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2007, 04:38:33 PM »
Jason,

What I was trying to get across and failed miserably was that you have to have the vision to have the ideas first. Perhaps what we need is a statistic like batting average. What percentage of the time does a GCA have the vision to create the best possible vs. another well executed but humdrum hole. The execution part is easy.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2007, 04:39:25 PM »
The ideas themselves are not that important, it is how you pull them off.

Somebody had to have the idea to begin with - seems kinda like you're shortchanging that guy! :)

I can't make an analogy to music or art periods, so I'll resort to math:

By the time I got my math degree, I "knew" more calculus than good ole Sir Isaac.

'Cept he invented it.

He ranks maybe 1st or 2nd among all human beings ever for raw intellectual power (unless you're a misguided humanties major :)), while I'd be lucky to make the top 1 billion.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 04:42:23 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2007, 04:40:33 PM »
The ideas themselves are not that important, it is how you pull them off.

Somebody had to have the idea to begin with - seems kinda like you're shortchanging that guy! :)

George,

I like the way you think!  ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2007, 05:28:54 PM »
I found this definition of "post modern", from Wikipedia .


...postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality.


As applied to current golf course design, this suggests that we aren't too clear about tried and true concepts of the past and we are all doing a lot of different things.

As alluded, many are not so sure the old strategic concepts work, at least not as simply as they were once envisioned because the game has changed.  Simply put, frontal openings aren't quite the necessary item to reach the green that they used to be, and with high spin balls, green contours are the new frontal bunkers (i.e. we are moving the carry hazards closer to the pin, but since we can't put bunkers in the green, we are using ridges, etc. to deflect shots)

I do know that execution of any idea makes or breaks it.  I can think of examples from my own work where it turns out (after several plays) that a bunker should have been slightly repositioned, a green contour slightly enhanced, etc.  As the old saying goes, its the details that make the difference.

As the old joke goes,

Q. "How do you feel about the gca's execution?"

A. "I'm in favor of it!"
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 05:29:45 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jay Cox

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2007, 06:05:32 PM »
Does figuring out (a) which old concepts will work best with new topography and (b) how best to combine old concepts count as part of "ideas" or "execution"?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2007, 06:14:04 PM »
The thing about this site which drives most practicing architects crazy is the notion that design is all about "ideas" and "strategy" and such.  If that were the case, it wouldn't pay squat, because everybody's got ideas.  The hard part is making those ideas work on the ground, and that's what golf architects get paid for.

New ideas about strategy are almost impossible to come by ... for sure someone else has thought of them, even if they've never been implemented.  

Fitting good ideas to the ground is called routing, and as Jay says, it's hard to know which camp to put that part in.

Peter Zarlengo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2007, 06:40:58 PM »
In regards to the changed wording to accomidate landscape architecture:

In the two years of design studio I have had, I've been told to borrow ideas and implement field tested elements and principals (such as axis, focal point, symmetry, hierarchy, grid, ect.) more often that, "why dont you try something completely different." Nothing in design is truely original based on previous experiences, beliefs, ect.

Funny that Jeff should mention post-modernism. My writing class this semester deals with the shift in landscape architecture style from modern - post-modern - sustaianable design. Got me thinking about the shift in golf architecture styles from modern - post-modern - minimialism (?).

If we arent so sure about the tried and true concepts of the past, what would the defining characteristic of post-modern golf design be? Or is the defining characteristic a lack of definition?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2007, 06:43:42 PM »
Perhaps the defining characteristic is that design is alway 2 years behind the newest ball technology?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2007, 06:45:40 PM »
The thing about this site which drives most practicing architects crazy is the notion that design is all about "ideas" and "strategy" and such.  If that were the case, it wouldn't pay squat, because everybody's got ideas.  The hard part is making those ideas work on the ground, and that's what golf architects get paid for.

New ideas about strategy are almost impossible to come by ... for sure someone else has thought of them, even if they've never been implemented.  

Fitting good ideas to the ground is called routing, and as Jay says, it's hard to know which camp to put that part in.

I think the question really is making it work for golfers, no?

But, I agree with the difficulty of fitting whatever idea to a new site. Why do you think they say we are "practicing" golf course architects?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2007, 06:46:54 PM »
... Simply put, frontal openings aren't quite the necessary item to reach the green that they used to be, and with high spin balls, green contours are the new frontal bunkers (i.e. we are moving the carry hazards closer to the pin, but since we can't put bunkers in the green, we are using ridges, etc. to deflect shots)
...

I don't get this. We have had high spin balls for some time now. What time frame are you referring to?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2007, 10:36:30 AM »
The thing about this site which drives most practicing architects crazy is the notion that design is all about "ideas" and "strategy" and such.  If that were the case, it wouldn't pay squat, because everybody's got ideas.  The hard part is making those ideas work on the ground, and that's what golf architects get paid for.

New ideas about strategy are almost impossible to come by ... for sure someone else has thought of them, even if they've never been implemented.  

Fitting good ideas to the ground is called routing, and as Jay says, it's hard to know which camp to put that part in.

To my way of thinking, this is execution.

TEPaul

Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2007, 07:00:56 PM »
"I think the quality of a golf hole largely comes down to how well the architect carried out well known and well worn concepts."

Jason:

I think a lot of the answer to your question probably depends on what you or anybody else assumes are 'well known and well worn concepts'.

Sometimes good architects, particularly these days, may need to look back in time and study what came way before to be able to use again some old fashioned concepts, including strategically.

I'll give you perhaps the best example of that possible;

BLINDNESS

That was an architectural concept that was once pretty hugely prized in early golf.

And then for various reasons it went completely out of favor and evolved from unpopular to taboo in modern golf.

Today some are beginning to use it and make it again particularly when there may be some off-setting strategy to avoid it that somehow remains "in balance" with accepting to deal with it strategically.

Personally, if I know a course pretty well I'll avoid some significant risk off a tee, for instance, and accept blindness on the next shot any day.  ;)

On of the things that may even help bring blindness back in golf particularly with better players is the total reliance on distance information.

I know that seems ironic but it's true. These guys today don't really care if something is not that visible if they know the distance they need to hit a ball.

Back in the early days of golf nobody figured out exact distances. They only relied on what their spatial "eye" told them and blindness obviously can really screw up that visual determination.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 07:07:41 PM by TEPaul »

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ideas or Execution?
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2007, 12:36:37 AM »

On of the things that may even help bring blindness back in golf particularly with better players is the total reliance on distance information.

I know that seems ironic but it's true. These guys today don't really care if something is not that visible if they know the distance they need to hit a ball.


Tom -

I have not noticed blindness returning.  I've assumed that is because of liability concerns and because golfers generally dislike them.

I played a very hilly course as a kid and routinely hit 5-6 blind approaches a round, so I have always been comfortable with and enjoyed such shots.  

I'm surprised, however, that you think that knowing the exact yardage is a new phenomenon that might spur a return of blindness.  It seems to me that, with sprinkler heads, I have known my yardage for the last 25 years.  


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back