[Mark Pavy]

Also, not sure how the handicap system fits into the paradox.  Or at least, when laying things out, I consider each shot and how doable it is for an estimation of several typical players.  I have only had one coffee today, but at first glance, your statement would seem to relate to how many times a gca would set up holes where handicap golfers, from their "proper" tee, to try/accept purposely, or  purposely, that a certain amount of shots require rather than make a wise option out of the safe route, no?





Jeff, there's a show called Golf World that regularly previews different golf courses from around the world, in nearly every preview, the course is described as being "challenging for the good player and caters to/ is enjoyable/ is easy for the novice/beginner". I could also imagine many clients describing the type of course they'd like built to potential architects along the same lines- challenging for the good golfer and playable/enjoyable/easy for the novice.
Whilst it hasn't been said, but certainly alluded to, the idea that an architect can somehow make a course hard for a good player and easier for novice is wishful thinking.

Most golf courses are standalone 18 hole courses, so it is understandable that any description would appeal to a broad spectrum of golfers, hence the adopted universal description. The fallacy of the statement is highlighted when a golf facility has 2 x 18 hole courses, 1 challenging/hard and 1 easy.

My handicap reference pertains to the fact that no matter how you design the course the handicapping system is remarkably accurate. I don't believe that an architect can somehow compress the scoring differential between novice and good player through design. Even if we explored the subjective appeal of a course, I still doubt whether a course could be challenging for the good golfer and easy/enjoyable etc for the novice. Surely if a course is challenging for a good golfer, it's challenging for the novice.

Maybe the paradox is how the spectrum of golfers describe a golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Only in Pat's twisted mind could him being wrong equate with him being right.....unless its really Donald Trump posting in Pat's name?

Jeff, actually, it's geometric like logic, if you say I'm wrong, I must be right.

In seriousness, yes on a broad scale your fw to rough statement is correct.  I was trying to add a bit of nuance to it.  Nuance has never been in your wheel house......Nuisance, yes, nuance, no.

BTW, in nuanced thinking, missing the green in a bunker vs. missing the green in a pond would be a different degree of proportionality in a few ways.

Wouldn't that depend upon the distance from the green to the pond ?  ?  ?
If the pond was immediately adjacent it would present a far more severe degree of proportionality than if it was 20 yards away from the green and adjacent bunkers.

If you have a 10 foot miss and may still get up and down (the theoretical half stroke penalty) vs water and possible stroke and distance, at least a one stroke penalty and maybe more, depending on the situation.

Agreed,, but again, linear distance is a critical factor.

A perfect example of proportionality would be a greenside bunker and then a pond 15 yards from the greenside bunker.

Some architects (most maybe) would at least consider a bunker over a pond on longer approach shots, or at least give more bail out on the far side on longer approaches with ponds, to proportionally balance the challenge, or give a way round.  I mentioned save bunkers along a lake earlier, and those are examples of trying to get a two step penalty.

Agreed, # 17 at TPC wouldn't work well with a long approach.

Are there any rules saying they have to do that?  No, just public opinion, normally driven by better players.  Are there great holes with water next to a long par 4 green?  Of course.  I am not advocating for strict proportionality, mind you, just trying to explain it to you and others of similar limited mental capacity.

The 16th at Pine Valley comes immediately to mind.
But, that's a huge green with ample room to the left of the pond.

Holes like the 13th and 15th at ANGC seem more acceptable in that the shot required to carry those ponds is a very short one for the great majority of golfers, and those who attempt to go for the green in two, readily accept the peril and penalty associated with failure.

It is what it is.

Or maybe, it is what it appears to be and not what it is.


Cheers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Agreed on TPC 17 and the par 5's at Augusta, you design those par 5's with the short approach in mind, and let the long player reach with a great shot.  If its going for it in two, they don't get more room to miss.

Would agree in theory that the distance to water would affect proportionality, as would the length of the approach.  I have used the strip save bunker on long par 4 approaches to keep slight misses out of water.  There is a limit to how far I even consider putting a pond from a green, though.  Never liked the look, and if too far, you cross into that reverse proportion philosophy, since no good player is going to miss a green by 40 yards, a pond their only punishes poorer player. 

[Joe Lane]

Hi Jeff and Bob,


Look, I don’t see how you guys can discount the wind as a factor, nor suggest that somehow it is variable each and every day. Anyone who has spent any time outdoors at all knows that the wind is generally from the west. Further, anyone—as both you gentlemen are—who has spent time on golf courses knows that holes are designed with that in mind. For instance, the twelfth at Streamsong Red is a 500 yard 4 par—but one that plays both downhill and nearly dead east northeast, with the prevailing wind. Hence, most days the player is going to receive an assist. Conversely, on other holes the player is usually harmed by that same wind—don’t try to tell me Coore & Crenshaw didn’t take that into account. And alternately, should for some reason the wind be reversed, then the ease of each hole is also reversed, which makes for some interesting decisions.


I could go on with this: many of the holes at Medinah, for example, are oriented on a north-south axis, which means that most days the winds are sideways. But at the fifteenth and sixteenth—two of the shortest and longest holes, respectively, on the course—the axis is more southwest-northeast, meaning that the wind can play a distinct role on tactical decisions. So, to reiterate, I think it’s utterly ridiculous to say that the wind is a non-factor: it denies both the reality that the wind can generally be relied upon to blow a certain direction, and that architects regularly make use of that knowledge.


I invite response.


Joe

[Dave McCollum]

I still don’t know why this micro soil is such a big deal.  Years of grazing, cowboys, outlaws, Indians, film crews, dirt bikes, and such, and it is still there.  I happily complied with the enviro authorities, but retain questions about PC nitpicking and common sense.  Build a golf course with helicopters?  Somebody smoking something?  The part of the story that impressed me is that he still did it.  That’s a passion I admire, but can’t explain.

Sorry, wrong post to the wrong thread.

[Dave McCollum]

What I meant to say:

Joe Lane—I’m about to fall into the bed of poisoned poppies and have no business writing about anything in my current state.  However, as is never my custom, welcome to the discussion.  You write and think well and I find your words engaging.  Don’t take this as encouragement from somebody popular on this board.  Rather the opposite, I think.  I chip around the edges and rarely get it up and down.  It took me something like 8 years to lose my Jr. status.  I don’t care and neither does anyone else.  It’s entertainment for golf geeks, however maladjusted.  Just keep it up, as I feel your voice adds substance to the inanity of the format.

Minor point:  I did a cursory search of your name and didn’t come up with an entry of “Who are you guys--revisited?” type of entry.  Not important—we don’t know anybody here—but it gives a vague notion of who we are talking to, fleshed out by meeting a few characters on occasion—highly recommended!—when we are able.  It’s been a great distraction for me.  I look forward for you future contributions.
 
Dave , with apologies for the thread-jack.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,


You bring up a good point.


"Proportionality" in terms of the broad spectrum of golfers.


An approach shot that lands 40 yards from the center of the green for a 1 handicap is unlikely, but, an approach shot that lands 40 yards from the center of the green for a 26 handicap is not a rarity.


However, it's unlikely that they'd be playing their approach shots from the same spot.


I would think that the expansion of the spectrum has made designing a course to serve all, more difficult.

[BCrosby]

Joe -

Let's calm down. Of course wind is a factor. So is weather (rain makes turf soft or hard), so is vegetation (trees and bushes come and go), so are other things. All of those are things a good architect will take into account.

The architectural challenge is to build a course that is interesting to play however those conditions might vary from day to day. Good holes are good holes if and only if they play well with the wind, against the wind, in dry conditions, in wet conditions, whether a tree survived a lightning strike or it didn't, whether it is impeccably maintained or not, and so forth.

You build those kind of holes not by making assumptions about wind direction, rain levels, etc., because you will often be wrong about those factors on any given day. You build those kind of holes with what you can control. You build them by making hard choices about permanent, on the ground architectural features. That's where the architect earns his keep.

So to get back to the theme of this thread, if you are interested in addressing the "paradox of proportionality" (unfortunately, there are not many archies who have thought much about it, a reason why I think Doak and a few others are special), the decisions about permanent architectural features on the ground are far more important than your best guess about prevailing winds or weather or etc.

Certainly those factors can't be ignored, but their effect on how golfers play a hole is hard to pin down from day to day. Sometimes they might be 'proportional', sometimes not. I don't know. I do know that they are unpredictable over any stretch of time longer than a day or two.

OTOH, where a bunker is placed, how a green fits into a landform, the visibility of a pin from different sides of the fw are all things whose effects on a golfer can be determined. They are the main tools in the architect's kit. For that reason they should be the main tools used by any one who cares about the 'paradox'.

Architectural features on the ground do the heavy lifting. Wind, weather and other changeable features should not be ignored. But giving them too much weight in the design of a hole is, if you will pardon the metaphor, what it means to take your eye off the real ball. The real ball is designing a a hole that is a good hole regardless of what those conditions are on any given day.

Bob         

[Joe Lane]

Bob,


I am sorry, but I fundamentally disagree—and thanks by the way for the demeaning and patronizing suggestion about “calming down.” I’d put it to you that, if you need to refer to that kind of underhanded tactic, you have obviously lost the point at issue. Maybe you should have some grace, and take a moment to think about the reality instead of debater’s tricks? 


Anyway, the point about the holes I mentioned was not that the wind affects the same way every day—but EXACTLY that the wind affects them differently. It’s just that, while they will usually play a certain way because of the prevailing wind, they will play differently—often surprisingly differently—should the wind change direction. A good architect, I submit, is one that can take these effects into account, not just ignore them. My belief is that if you took even a minute really to think through what I am saying, you would see that I am correct.


Again, I have learned enormously from your essays about Crane and Behr. That’s why I am surprised to find you even objecting to the point I am making. [size=78%] [/size]


Joe

[Ryan Coles]

Building a golf course and not taking into account wind and soil is like disregarding whether or not you're in an earthquake zone when laying foundations.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Building a golf course and not taking into account wind and soil is like disregarding whether or not you're in an earthquake zone when laying foundations.

Seismic considerations are mandated by applicable design codes which are incorporated by reference into statutory regulations.


What's the equivalent in this scenario that governs golf courses?

[Niall C]

"Anyone who has spent any time outdoors at all knows that the wind is generally from the west. Further, anyone—as both you gentlemen are—who has spent time on golf courses knows that holes are designed with that in mind."

"It’s just that, while they will usually play a certain way because of the prevailing wind, they will play differently—often surprisingly differently—should the wind change direction. A good architect, I submit, is one that can take these effects into account, not just ignore them."

Joe

At the risk of coming across as condescending, patronising, or even pedantic are you not contradicting yourself in the two statements above ?

Niall

[Joe Lane]

Hi Niall,


I don’t think the two are contradictory in the slightest. The point is that the architect recognizes wind is generally from one direction, but that should it change it will affect the play of the hole. For example, the fifteenth at Medinah is a short par four that generally plays into the southwest prevailing wind. Therefore, in a general sense laying up is a good option. (There are further details, but this is what’s relevant here.) But should the wind change, and blow from the northeast, then it is clearly time to let it rip.


I am simplifying for effect, but you get the idea. The architect knows that most days it will play one way—but that on other days the player gets a huge advantage. In both cases, the architect is taking wind into account, and not ignoring it as Jeff and Bob suggest. My belief is that this is better architecture.


Joe

[Doug Siebert]

A good example of a 'proportional' design is Top Golf. If you hit it in the innermost ring you get 10 points or whatever, with progressively less until you get nothing if you miss the target "green" entirely. Even that isn't perfectly proportional though - I found flying the ball to the target sometimes resulted in the ball bouncing crazy high and not getting counted as a hit. My solution was to aim a bit short and one hop it into the target area. But then you bring in the randomness of the bounce, and of course the ability to bounce it in means that really poor shots can also score with a little luck.

The lesson here is that even when you try to strip golf down to its simplest form as a game of darts played on a much larger field, proportionality is an illusion. I agree with those who say that proportionality (graduated rough etc.) is fine at the tour level, but seeing it there will make average golfers expect to see it at the courses they play if they want to be considered a "good" course.

I like the idea of the possibility of recovery from a wild shot (but maybe that's because I hit a lot of them) It is fine having some holes where you know if you miss by very far you are totally screwed, but a course is a lot less fun if you have no margin for error on either side on most holes. e.g. a course cut out of a forest, or in a planned development with housing lining both sides of the fairway and wetlands in the area unsuitable for housing. It doesn't matter how much architectural interest a course has, I'm not going to enjoy it if it leaves little margin for error on any shot.

[Pete Lavallee]

Joe,

Do you have any example of an architect changing the design of a hole or shifting a proposed routing because of wind direction?

[Kalen Braley]

I'll let the experts chime in on this, but thought I would mention one thing.

IMO, A course like Ballyneal seems to have a lot of elasticity built into it, because while it has a somewhat prevailing wind from the SW, the wind can blow out there in any given direction on any given day.  Its not like other places like say the San Francisco bay area where in the summer time, you get the afternoon wind from the west, and this happens 90-95% of the time, (which I would call a "true" prevailing wind.)

But its obviously critical to accommodate for any kind of wind when the specific location demands it.

[Matthew Petersen]

A good example of a 'proportional' design is Top Golf. If you hit it in the innermost ring you get 10 points or whatever, with progressively less until you get nothing if you miss the target "green" entirely. Even that isn't perfectly proportional though - I found flying the ball to the target sometimes resulted in the ball bouncing crazy high and not getting counted as a hit. My solution was to aim a bit short and one hop it into the target area. But then you bring in the randomness of the bounce, and of course the ability to bounce it in means that really poor shots can also score with a little luck.

This is actually an excellent example. You can't spend 5 minutes at TopGolf without seeing someone skull a shot that drops off the third story and scoots along the fake turf into a target for points. Meanwhile, if you loft a shot one yard too far, it will likely find no target and get you zero.


I'm a good golfer and last month I was beat at Top Golf by someone who has never played in her life (went to the range with me and her husband once prior to going to Top Golf).


Maybe Top Golf has more in common with golf than I previously imagined.

[Ryan Coles]

Building a golf course and not taking into account wind and soil is like disregarding whether or not you're in an earthquake zone when laying foundations.

Seismic considerations are mandated by applicable design codes which are incorporated by reference into statutory regulations.


What's the equivalent in this scenario that governs golf courses?

Hi Sheldon


In the sense that both are liable to end in disaster. But then you knew that anyway.

[Niall C]

Joe


If my interpretation of your posts is correct, the first post suggests the hole should be designed with prevailing wind in mind while the second post suggests it should be designed with other eventualities. If you are designing for other eventualities, which I take to mean wind from basically any direction, are you really designing for the prevailing wind at all ?


Niall

[Joe Lane]

Niall,


Your interpretation is not correct. While it is true that the golf hole will be designed from the point of view of the prevailing wind direction, the point of the second paragraph is to say that is also possible to design the hole to play, in effect, two different ways: one from the prevailing direction, the other from an opposing direction. I am sorry the point was not clearer—I will try to do better in the future.


Pete,


If you’d look carefully you’d see that I have in fact described four different holes in which such can be taken to be the case. I assume that what you want, however, is some kind of documentation: i.e., Donald Ross or somebody saying, “Hey, I designed this hole to take advantage of the wind in this fashion.” Maybe such a “smoking gun” out there, maybe it’s not—but I’d suggest that looking for documentary evidence is foolish when there is the primary evidence of the holes themselves.


Even if there were such a statement, and the hole it referred to did not actually play in the manner which Ross or whoever claimed it did, then the statement would be worthless. In other words, the primary evidence is and always will be the manner in which the hole actually plays—documentary evidence, though nice, is at best merely supplementary evidence. The proposition stands or falls based on the evidence of the holes themselves.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe -

if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that top-flight architects (e.g. like Tom D or Ron W, fortunate to have seaside/ windy sites at Bandon and Cabot respectively) may be able to design holes such that the golf will be engaging and strategic for a wide range of skill-sets both in the prevailing wind and in the opposing/non prevailing wind -- and that in the latter the holes will be engaging and strategic in markedly different ways than in the former.

If that is what you are suggesting, I can't imagine that Niall or Bob or Pete would disagree with you. Indeed, I'd imagine that one or all of them would add, in support of your contention, that "great greens" play a key role in the success of such elasticity-of-design. 

Peter   

[Joe Lane]

Peter,


Thank goodness someone is paying attention—yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting. I believe you are correct that no one would disagree with the statement once it is framed properly; evidently, I did not frame it correctly. Thank you for so carefully staking out the terrain. Still, if you examine the statements of Bob or Jeff carefully—the statements I was responding to—I do not think I erred in thinking they were discounting the wind to an inordinate degree.


Your insight about the greens is also very keen: the fifteenth at Medinah 3 is likely the slyest green on the property, and not only nearly directly exposed to the wind above, but also into a hill so that the unwary can be caught unawares by the force of the wind above treeline.


Anyway, I would say that in golf wind is as important a factor as grass, if not more so. Thanks for articulating the point better.


Joe

[Niall C]

Joe -

if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that top-flight architects (e.g. like Tom D or Ron W, fortunate to have seaside/ windy sites at Bandon and Cabot respectively) may be able to design holes such that the golf will be engaging and strategic for a wide range of skill-sets both in the prevailing wind and in the opposing/non prevailing wind -- and that in the latter the holes will be engaging and strategic in markedly different ways than in the former.

If that is what you are suggesting, I can't imagine that Niall or Bob or Pete would disagree with you. Indeed, I'd imagine that one or all of them would add, in support of your contention, that "great greens" play a key role in the success of such elasticity-of-design. 

Peter   

Peter


I thought Bob's earlier post, the one that Joe took exception to, was actually bang on the money. As usual Bob managed to articulate much better than I ever could the sort of things going round in my head. As I'm fortunate to get to play a lot of traditional old links courses its long occurred to me the amount of flexibility that a lot of links holes have. Natural water courses and certain geographical features aside, links holes tend to eschew forced cross hazards. Whether they were originally designed like that or whether they were tweaked over the years is debatable but I tend to think it is the latter. Instead of landing zones they have playing corridors which generally negates the need for multiple teeing areas.


I've got to think that was a consequence of the wide range of standard of golfers, exaggerated further by wind (and temperatures) that can and do vary over the course of a round. How you reduce that down to designing for a couple of eventualities, I don't know.


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - it's a big/complex topic indeed, with many parts, and I can get 'lost' in it.  But I wanted to say thanks for a very clear and striking image/phrase you used in reference to links courses, i.e. "instead of landing zones they have playing corridors..."  That is very good

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()