[ward peyronnin]

Today I played a well done and beautifully conditioned parkland Carolina course routed thru tree lined corridors, Nice undulations and took advantage of the considerable topography. Very well conditioned and greens were stellar as were the overrall green platforms and movement.

Yet each hole had no reference to the rest of the course; as if one was guided continuously through a chute. After playing tracks such as Holston Hills where the entire course is prob visible from every point and I don't exagerate and the wonderful Morraine renovation and tree removal and even other courses where at least several holes all connect at some point on the course I wonder?
How critical is it for a truly well done routing to embrace points pf adjacency/visibility? I believe that this is one of those subtle qualities that must be present to elevate a golf course to a superior status.

Am I advocating a personal preference or this one of those universal standards?

[Sean_A]

Chez Wardo

In principle I am not against tree lined courses just as is the case with dune lined courses.  I do, however, think it is much harder to offer varied strategic design on a limiting landscape.  For the visual side of things, almost always I think less trees is probably better, especially if there are cool trees on the property.  Many courses aren't blessed with exterior views so the interior views become all the more important.  I wish parkland courses were designed the way parks were designed 100+ years ago when trees were used as a highlights for the landscaping rather than defining the landscape.  The main idea was to provide open spaces for people to enjoy...it should be the same for courses so far as I am concerned.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Ward - in a thread years ago I found myself describing a course like Ballyneal or Dismal River as offering 'expansive isolation' and a course like Pine Valley as offering 'focused isolation'. I think both kinds of isolation are/can be wonderful, especially if the type of isolation fits the inherent nature of the site. For my tastes, I think a parkland Carolina course should offer the focused isolation.

[Mike_Young]

hole or whole

[ward peyronnin]

Thanks Guys

My landscape design guru Russel Page revealed to me 35 years ago that the void created by the planted volumes can be just as significant as those volumes. I agree that open spaces properly framed have an appeal to the human senses. Thus the appeal of links courses and even dune lined where one inevitable crests the top and sees views. (PV had no trees originally so its focused isolation is not by design but a happy result and i recall seeing at least adjacent holes on occasion)

The course I mention is no doubt influenced no doubt by the houses roads etc developed in tandem as well as the thick forest. Chicago Gold, Merion, etc are sited where thick forests were but they are wonderfully connected. I am saying that while a course can have many superlative qualities I think lacking this quality for me knocks it down quite a bit regardless its natural setting.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ward, I too prefer a visibility and connectivity to other parts of the course when playing. But this is a preferential thing.


It's amazing how many people love a course because each individual hole is isolated from the others. Many architects even shoot for this, going to extraordinary lengths to hide views of golfers standing elsewhere. If you play Dundonald, the starter states with pride that "the architect (Kyle Phillips) deliberately made sure that you can't see another hole when playing" as if this seals the course's quality.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ward,


There are many landscape architecture principles which might apply to golf.  Visibility would be called vistas by most, which are nice. However, Repton (or one of those really old dead landscape architects, can't recall who) also realized the value of "looking around the corner" to see what came next, or human curiosity.  And enclosed holes follow the refuge/open principle (Bambi, head for the woods.....) whereby we somehow crave enclosed/defined spaces.


The key is using what you have on any site to its max to give a sense of place.  However, I can see carving one or two view slots on a totally wooded site, or placing a fairway in a big valley on an open site to block the view, etc.  Having limited examples of the landscape idea among a sea of otherwise sameness probably has more effect than all of one or the other, if it can be managed.

[Tom_Doak]

One of the most oft-used cliches about Pine Valley 20-30 years ago was that "you can't see any hole other than the one you are playing," as if that was a thing to aspire to.  Of course, Pine Valley wasn't that way at all when it was built ... moments like coming up on the back of the 9th green and seeing the 18th fairway way down below were well distributed throughout the round.


When we are building a course through woods, I seek to find at least one or two spots to make a clearing big enough for two holes wide, just to break up the monotony of trees on both sides everywhere.  And when building a course through dunes, I look for a couple of places where the routing will converge ... such as the way the 7th green at Ballyneal touches the 4th fairway, or the 11th tee overlooks #17.

[Peter Pallotta]

I never noticed what Tom and Jeff mention, i.e. on wooded sites, an architect opening up a couple of sections to reveal vistas. But now that they've mentioned it, I see/remember that it's true.

To Ally's point about how many golfers love a course because each hole is isolated from the other: it reminds me of when I was just starting to play, in my mid to late 30s.  I wasn't very good - and too old not to notice but still too young not to care. I tended to play only with the same 3 friends, and I liked the isolation for that very reason, i.e. it felt like it was just us out there - I couldn't see any other golfers, but more importantly they couldn't see me!


 

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting how views within 'parkland' (courses) have altered.
 
Decades ago in the UK, prior to WWII, even WWI, 'parkland' golf was golf in a Capability Brown type stately home open aspect landscape. Such a landscape had occasional carefully positioned specimen trees, and views and angles across features leading the eye to something interesting, something 'eye-catching', in the far distance, like a folly, a church on a hill, something like this. And landscapes like this used to be grazed by animals and have features like ha-ha's etc. Indeed many stately homes in the UK had their own golf courses.


Over time though the term 'parkland golf' has become used to cover just about all inland courses (maybe not grazed uplands/moorlands etc) and the playing landscape has morphed into tree-lined playing corridors where eye-catching looks at features in the distance no longer really occur.


Golf in a yee olde traditional 'parkland' setting, the settings and landscapes of decades ago, can actually be rather nice, rather gentle. Serene and tranquil. But a key aspect is surely keeping vegetation growth in check and not planting any more. Of course once-upon-a-time vegetation control was mostly done by the grazing of animals.....hint, hint.


atb

[Peter Pallotta]

I've often wondered and even asked about this, and I'll continue to defer to the likes of Tom D and Ward on the answer, but when they write that PV "wasn't that way [tree lined corridors throughout] at all when it was built", I have to ask:


And what did the architect(s) and early club members think was going to pop-up there over time, apartment buildings and windmills?


I mean, PV is as close to a labour-of-love and one man's vision as any great design in America, and its membership has always been small and historically aware and justifiably proud of what Mr Crump (with help) created there, and the original site was naturally/heavily forested before any work began. So:


The day it was finished and open for play, and then for years afterwards, is it likely that those who most knew and loved the course and were closest to it thought to themselves:


"You know, Bob, it's great and I love it, but let's throw Mr Crump's vision out the window and start planting trees absolutely everywhere -- you know, to get that claustrophobic closed-in feel"?


Shouldn't we stop saying about courses that we think have/had too many trees (Olympic is another that comes to mind): "I've seen photos, and on the day it opened all you saw was open space...oh, and maybe some small saplings along the fairways"?


Peter
 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


I don't know if George Crump intended for the trees to grow back at Pine Valley, or not.


You could be right, that it was inevitable, and he should have known it.  I guess I should have known it would happen on the back nine at High Pointe when I built that, but I can tell you I wildly underestimated how quickly the trees would grow back, and by the time I realized, it was too late.  [It's impossible to know how Crump might have reacted when the trees started growing back, because, of course, he took his own life long before then.]


But if he did expect them to grow back, or wanted them to, I wonder why he cut down pretty much all the trees between holes when he was building it?  I mean, he knew where his holes were going, and he didn't do any grading out in those areas.

[ward peyronnin]

All you have to do is read Donald Ross's Golf was good to me to see how the ODG felt about trees and George Crump was a contemporary

Good points but I have played Victoria when it was overgrown and primal and after they released many holes and one could see some of the rest of the golf course. That is what I prefer is the  feeling like your are connected to larger landscape. Not necessarily adjacency of holes. All the lists of my fav courses have these style tracks predominate- Shinnecock, Merion, NGLA, TOC, Chicago, Portrush, NC Down, Turnberry. Therefore I conclude that it seems to be a common element of highly regarded design? Connecting to the larger landscape. My God how cool it was to stand on the hitting range at Piping Rock and see, over the old polo field, the whole front nine. You could , with effort, see shots required out there and then perceive them as you practiced.

I am not dismissing isolation but more looking for those small differentiators separating good from superior   

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks, and for adding some details about your experience.


In one sense, it's 'academic', i.e. what matters is what's best for a course *right now*, and the various 'opening ups' that you and Jeff and Ward mention make sense and appeal to me too.


But in another sense, the 'what did Mr Crump expect to happen' at PV maybe does have some relevance in the context of potential restorations - and might in fact be what prevents it from becoming a *renovation* instead.


 

[Scott Weersing]

I think it is all personal preference. Do you like each hole to be a framed photo, or do you like the course to be a framed photo?


I prefer the course to be a framed photo, for example Oakmont 2017 vs Oakmont 1990.


If you like Shadow Creek, or Wade Hampton, or Pete Dye GC, or Harbour Town or Eugene CC then you like each hole framed.


Fewer trees are better for the grass and greens but land movement is more important to me than course visibility.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()