[John Connolly]

The golfing experience that flows from a single hole's architecture is dynamic. We may feel something on the tee, something else as we line up our approach and still something else when we settle into the greenside bunker for a recovery play. Surely, that variability in the mental state affects the design for each of those hole components.


The successful architect predicts the likely contemplations of the majority of golfers over each of those shots and tries to deliver on that potential experience. As an example for a par 4 ...


1 - Player on the tee is willing to consider options but often has limited control of the driver so the architect offers width with some nuanced strategy.
2 - We are thrilled to find our ball in the fairway, are charmed by the green and surrounding hazards, and welcome the architect's directive to play accurately into the flag. There is more control with the nine iron than the driver so we accept a more stern request.
3- Eureka! We've made it onto the green but what a treacherous green it is. Sloped, tilted, contoured .. whichever ... we are thrilled with the roll's possibilities. Again, we accept the architects gauntlet.


In this fanciful scenario, the cliche repeats ... "offer width off the tee and challenge the golfer incrementally as the hole draws near." And such an approach syncs with our states of mind throughout the hole. We play the game to have fun, and it's fun to get off the tee without too much reprimand, but the ingredients for fun change as we approach. Give us a calculus problem when the finish line is in sight. It's this kind of design I enjoy the most. Is it just me?

[Peter Pallotta]

I think "calculus" is a very good term/concept, John. I failed the subject in high school. (I bet Tom D didn't!). It makes me think of all the maths: algebra, functions & relations, geometry. In that context, the boring golf holes are the ones that use the same calculus and geometry from start to finish, consistently/continually. Architects (and supers) sometimes try, consciously or not, to disguise that fact: with vegetation and hazards and mowing lines, but I think our mind's eye perceives the sameness nonetheless, i.e. perceives that the same basic calculation using the same basic vectors is being asked for/indicated throughout. I think maybe that's why wonderful sites/great land - with cants and sways and dips and hollows and rises - are so useful, i.e. they can add, sometimes even without the architect's knowledge and consent, a whole new and other level of algebra to our engagement with a golf hole.   
Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -


Interesting. Good holes are about fuzzy math; not so good holes are about simple math?


Bob

[Terry Lavin]

It's a game defined by the vagaries of intent and execution. Some days we see it, follow it and finish it. Most days we see it, miss it and frustrate its intent. C'est la guerre.

[Sean_A]

Peter -


Interesting. Good holes are about fuzzy math; not so good holes are about simple math?


Bob

The best holes aren't quantifiable by math. They just are.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Art vrs science. A debate that's been going on for a long, long time. And not just in golfing circles either.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()