[Adam_F_Collins]

It would seem to me that some of what makes a course memorable is variation or contrast from one hole to the next, giving the different holes distinct identities.

At the same time, a course has to have continuity and 'flow' in order to really be considered a great design.

I have played courses which certainly lack contrast, and I find them (even after several visits) to become a blur in memory - It seems to me that the term "Signature Hole" may simply have arisen from the fact that so many courses have but one hole of note which stands out (however slightly) from the homogeneous remaining 17. It is also not uncommon that this contrast comes at the cost of continuity - the 'signature' hole is noteworthy only because it doesn't belong.

How do architects consciously employ contrast? How do they endeavor to give holes distinction from one another while at the same time preserving the overall continuity of the whole?

Having little real knowledge of the subject of Golf Course Architecture myself, and even less experience with 'The Classics", I wonder if some of you might describe the use of contrast in golf course Design.

[paul cowley]

adam ...too much depends on ones abilities , i mean contrast versus tsartnoc is the hole debate , as i see it anyway.......

[Adam_F_Collins]

I agree, Paul that it depends on one's abilities. That's why I feel the question can be discussed. How do those with the ability do it? Consciously? Is it a 'feel thing' for some? Either way, it seems important to achieve. How do they do it?

Do they try to be sparing with certain types of hazards or types of holes? Say - never have more than one forced carry? Conscious effort to vary the direction of holes in relation to the winds?

It is one area that I think really lies in the hands of the designer. And I would imagine that success is achieved in vastly different ways.

[paul cowley]

....can not respond ....i'm in hypothetical catatonia [but wait ,i percieve what looks like a barkeep ][er][her]...

[Tom_Doak]

Adam,

That's an excellent observation, but I don't know that I could really discuss it either.  A good sense of composition is important, too, but how do you discuss that?  You either have a feel for it, or you don't.

[A_Clay_Man]

Im troubled by the term contrast. At least as Adam tries to define it. If I had to define contrast, it would be more of a visual, and a texture thing, not necessarily caused by land forms or features, but by nature's ground cover and associated colors, ceating the texture. Thinking about the holes at Pebble and Cypress I don't see where there is all that much contrast (once again as Adam defines it).

If Adam's definition of contrast were land form or features, would Friar's head have had to transition the two distinct land types?

What point am I missing?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Well, for instance if an architect uses the same feature - say, a bunker of similar size to threaten a tee shot and turn a slight dogleg on several holes of the same course - those several holes will lack contrast for those tee shots.

As I say, I don't have a lot of experience, but One thing that struck me about Highlands Links in Cape Breton was the contrast from hole to hole. Some of it is landform, but much of it is how it's used (and I realize that the course has changed over the years) For instance, Number six - a wide, flattish par five sweeping to the right with a finger of ocean threatening the tee shot - Numer 7 (also par 5), but tight, uneven double dogleg, rising up into the green. As I say, some of that is land - but the routing is chosen, and the layout is decided by the architect.

I've also studied route maps where you can clearly see a sort of scientific approach to the creation of contrast - medium downhill par 4, long uphill par 4, short uphill par 5, downhill short par 4, long uphill dogleg par 4, severe downhill par three, long dogleg downhill par 4, flat sweeping par 5, par 3 over water, long uphill par 4...

Do you see what I mean?

But that's fairly straight forward. As Adam Clayman suggests, contrast can be created in interesting ways, like through the use of plant life, such as an expanse of long grass, or using a series of small bunkers on one hole and a really, large yawning bunker on another.

In Art Theory, the human tendency toward symmetry, balance, equal spacing and repetition has to be recognized and overcome to create contrast and visual interest. You learn that 'balance' and 'symmetry' are not the same thing. Variation can create focus and make individual aspects of a work stand out beyond others.

Maybe I'm still not explaining this right...?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Okay, the dictionary definition -

Contrast

n. 1) a great difference; difference; striking difference: The contrast between black and white. 2) anything that shows difference when put side by side with something else. Black hair is a sharp contrast to light skin. 3) arts. The usage of varied, shapes, sounds, etc. to heighten the effect of a composition.

Maybe I should say 'variation' instead?

Another way to consider it would be this:

Several architects, (including Doak, Thompson and MacKenzie) have run two consecutive par threes or par fives together in a row. I would imagine that they must then make some effort to create contrast between the two holes - to make them too similar would seem like a waste. So, they might employ a variation in yardage, elevation, use of the landforms, major hazard, etc. etc. to give these two holes more contrast - as the similarity of par makes it even more important...

...doesn't it?

[A_Clay_Man]

Adam, If I understand where you're  heading, isn't it just as important to compliment each other (hole to hole), rather than be in contrast?

Thinking about SFGC, I don't know what others don't like about it, but I enjoyed the familiarity of similar looking features, and as the course unwound (up to 13). it's whole became better and better. It made the entire experience memorable and even those specific features have not escaped these neurons.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

I have always thought of contrast in a couple of ways.

First of all, I think of the contrast of colors and textures of sand vs. turf, water vs. turf, on individual holes, and wooded holes vs. open holes, hilly vs flat, on the same course.  I think most of the great visual holes in the world are possibly a study in contrast.

When I hear some here say that they like low profile greens that blend into nature, I say why? Generally, if you want a feature to stand out, and as the penultimate target of a hole, the green should stand out, you do nothing but try to contrast it with its surroundings.

As far as hole to hole goes, my thoughts parallel the comments of one of your posts - most holes major features are too much alike rather than too different.  Now, I tend to think visually, like your examples.  Therefore I go to some length - even keeping a hip pocket list of various features I would like to try out in the name of variety - to use clusters of bunkers, large bunkers, etc.  Round tees, followed by square tees, big greens followed by a tiny one, etc.

I also try to look at it as a good player does, in terms of play concept.  This green requires a fade, this tee shot is to a tight fairway, this green is really small, there are two different tees to hit from here, or two different fairways to choose, etc.

I think that the things any architect does by habit, rule, convention or training override (and thus provide enough continuity) to the things they go out of their way to do simply to be different, like providing an unusual bunker.   Therefore, I try to go out of my way to provide something really different on each hole, and rarely do I get so far out of the box that people complain about continuity......

As I wrote for Paul Daley's new book (shameless plug for Paul, although this is one that is likely to kill sales, at least until they find out I'm an architect in a cage....) is that if the hole as a feature strong enough to give the hole its name, it probably has a feature strong enough to make the hole distinct.....

I mean a real name, like Churchpews, Road Hole, etc. not the crappy made up names that someone tacks on from the marketing department, but ones that evolved from years on challenging, and most likely losing to the hole, or its nameseake hazard.....  

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam, If I understand where you're  heading, isn't it just as important to compliment each other (hole to hole), rather than be in contrast?

Yes, I believe that you're right on that point and it is that continuity that I was referring to at the start of this thread. I think the trick is to provide contrast from one hole to the next, one shot to the next, while at the same time not breaking the harmonious quality of the entire course.

Jeff Brauer,

I thank you for your insights. Your post describes exactly the kind of things I was wondering about, and I hope that others might see your comments and perhaps have a better idea of what I was trying to get at. - It is somewhat difficult to explore things "from the outside" so it can be tricky to find the right way to ask a question.

In A.W. Tillinghast's article, "Giving Individuality to Golf Holes" he writes:

"Let every hole be worthy of a name. If it does not possess a striking individuality through some gift of Nature, it must be given as much as possible artificially, and the artifice must be introduced in so subtle a manner as to make it seem natural"

In order for something to have individuality, it must have some quality which makes it different from others. This difference exists in contrast to the holes before and after. And as Tillinghast suggests, what the land does not provide, the designer must create.

[Willie_Dow]

To my way of thinking this is the most important thought that has been brought before GCA since its conception.

[Tom_Doak]

Ah, now we're talking.  I finally have something to disagree with Jeff Brauer about!

I think most architects practicing today spend WAY TOO MUCH effort trying to define their targets with various forms of contrast.

One of the main ways we create contrast is with different grass types for greens, fairways, and roughs.  Pete Dye was a fanatic about trying new things:  Long Cove originally had centipede roughs, which was unbelievably good-looking contrast with bermuda fairways without any overseeding.  (Unfortunately, the centipede didn't hold up to any traffic.)  At Austin Country Club he had creeping bentgrass and St. Augustinegrass within fifteen feet of each other!  I always admired Pete for that, and in my early forays in design I tried to experiment a little also.  

It was only when I looked at older courses which had been remodeled that I noticed how unnatural it looked when new sod and new seeded cultivars replaced the old, mottled grass mixtures of yesteryear.  Then it was clear to me that Nature doesn't paint by the numbers ... Nature blends things together.

Ever since that realization, I can't stand to look at new architecture, because it all looks man-made to me.

Remember Dr. MacKenzie's quote from THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS:  

"In the great schools of golf, such as St. Andrews and Hoylake, there is no defined line between the fairway and rough."

I played at Westward Ho! last week and certainly it was true there.  It was really hard to tell where they mowed and where they didn't ... the grazing animals tend to blur the line.  Most Americans would have hated it:  they want to know whether they're in the "fairway" or not, so they can complain if they get a bad lie.

 

[paul cowley]

so true tom......and adam , i'm back in the mental saddle  .

not sure what i might want to add , except i have enjoyed reading your insightful and reasoned observations......i guess i kind of lock up when confronted with trying to describe a process that rebels against a formulaic description [which is probably the best i could come up with to answer your question]........

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom Doak's last post really got me thinking because we supts. are always thinking about or being reminded about definition. Whether it's a sharp edged bunker or different fertility for roughs and fairways, or those perfect lines we're required to have separating all the differing heights of cut. In fact we’re often graded on how good our definition is maintained.

 I know about trying to get a course to blend into it's surroundings by staying away from defining the outer edge of the rough or golf course, but trying to lose the definition between fwy and rough is a new idea to me. Are there any great golf courses out there that don't have some definition?

[paul cowley]

don ...many european links courses exibit that quality ,but its more about climate and turf type...doesn't translate well here.

now if we didn't irrigate roughs and they were mown or not mown according to their height , not their color ,we might get closer to comparable play charactoristics.....

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Adam,
For what its worth, your my vote for the Newbie of the Year. You have done more to raise the bar of posting then anyone of senority here, and I think it really means something. Thanks for your excellent contribution!

Most Accurate Quote of the Year goes to Tom Doak:

I can't stand to look at new architecture, because it all looks man-made to me.

This comes after his revelation, which I think he knew all along, he just hasn't said it for sometime.

Back to Adam,
Adam, being a newbie and all, and even more brave to claim lack of knowledge..............

From the standpoint of being a student of golf architecture, I think your question has some really interesting points that should be addressed.

I think there are too many architects that try to forge an environment in places where they don't belong--can't recognize a unique environment that may support outstanding architecture--thereby creating their designs based-off of one or a few modes or criteria. This is where they become formuliac. They have no idea how to create on the canvas given, let alone fit golf holes and their strategies on this canvas that is seperates in 18 individual parts that coincide with one another.  A series of those parts may be of a different contrast then say the other half of that series, but it all comes together when the architect places it in the series of events that happen on that canvas. (or in this case golf course site)

Some of the best of these happenings are when they are of a quirky nature--others, when they just take it right to the senses. A perfect example of this is Capital of American Golf No, not the World Golf Village in Florida, but the Eastern end of Long Island--The National Golf Links of America and Shinnecock Hills--where two completel contrasting styles of architecture peacefully exist next to one another.

(Could this mean that Tom Doak is coming-through with a completely different and contrasting design to match this existing nature?  A school of architecture not yet explorered?  Let us indeed hope, because this might be HIS next level.)

Some years ago, I did a post called "Good Quarry/Bad Quarry" and since that time, I have learned a lot about golf architecture. I used two examples--Merion's Quarry, and how Hugh Wilson (Not to be confused with rapmaster, Huge "Puffy" Wilson) used the quarry to his benefit, not just on one hole but the three closing holes (one of the most demanding closing stretches in Golf in my honest opinion) and Tom Fazio's Black Diamond Ranch, which may have used the quarry for one or two holes, and not so much in play, but more for visual "ugly is beautiful" affect.

Now these are two completely contrasting elements--Merion in its rough-edged beauty that maybe slowly fading for a more manufactured, manicured look to Black Diamond Ranch , and the mastery of making a ugly rock quarry look beautiful from an esthetic standpoint. I do think this is the difference in the mindsets between many modern vs. most classical architects. (omiting my favored nations) These are two examples, in my opinon, of two distinct contrasting golf scenes and both are unique but different in their use of their quarries.

Now lets take a nasty step in contrast on the modern side.

The Quarry at La Quinta--another Tom Fazio design.

Not to take anything away from the QofLQ, but its contrasting beauty isn't at its quarry which from what I saw was nothing more then fake, manufactured boulders that are lining a former quarry wall. While that may look pretty and impressive to some, I think it ruins the opening holes because it just looks manufactured. It doesn't look artifical, but it just does have this manufactured feeling to it. Its not until you get out and away from that faux environment of streams, fake boulders and hilarious waterscapes that look like they belong at Disneyland; and on to holes #12, 13, 14, & 15 where the course does get to be interesting and really beautiful.  But then the transistion from Santa Rosa Mountains to La Quinta lowlands takes place again, and the fake, artificial nature of the site just glaringly comes out so much that its embarassingly hokey.

What is seen here is a contrasting of naturally devised holes, which many features had to be cleverly constructed to un-naturally devised holes where nature was simply covered-up.

Simply put, it just doesn't work.

Now as far as strategies are concerned, I'm going to give you two places--one classical and the other modern where strategies, environment and GREANESS worthy of study occurs:

Riviera CC and Friars Head GC.

Here you have two sites completely different from one another, but at both sites the architect has masterfully created in the most contrasting nature 18 individual golf holes of individual character.

Both are great examples of the pure study of the Art of Golf Architecture.  

[Joe Hancock]

Are there any great golf courses out there that don't have some definition?

Don,

I took my employees to Diamond Springs yesterday. It's a 2 years old, DeVries design that has two heights of cut: greens, and everything else. Tees, fairways and roughs are all maintained at one height with one mower. The playability of the place is unbelievable! Wide corridors of bluegrass that fade into fescues and natural vegetation......darn near perfect!

Joe

[Mark_Guiniven]

Remember Dr. MacKenzie's quote from THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS:  

"In the great schools of golf, such as St. Andrews and Hoylake, there is no defined line between the fairway and rough."

Tom,
Do you think MacKenzie is talking about collars? I always thought it was about spaces.

p59 Spirit "There is no defined line..."
p100 your AM book "Golf is played for pleasure..."
p186 Spirit "An approach of this kind..."

[Tom_Doak]

No, Mark, at St. Andrews it is really hard to tell where the fairway ends and the rough begins.  Around the greens it appears that sometimes they are missing spots while mowing -- a few blades of long grass in the bottom of a hollow which is otherwise being mowed as fairway, not really rough, but enough to stop you from putting through the hollow.  There are a lot of places where it's hard to tell where you are.

Remember, there is no fairway in the rules of golf; just through the green.

The purity of modern grass seed is part of the culprit for making everything look so manufactured.  Sod is even worse; that's why I try to seed every part of our new courses, so there is some chance for a different texture to invade the bunker faces.

[T_MacWood]

In analyzing some of the differences between American and British golf architecture, Darwin observed the American practice of well defined rough.

"....there is always a perfectly definite fairway, and desperately definite rough on either side of it. If you drive crooked in America, you know what you are in for: there is no half-hearted, relenting purgatory; it is either Heaven or the other place."

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't this discussion core to the values, Mac and Jones had, for ANGC, and are being ignired?

Sheryl had an amazing idea for this exact thang. She speculated on the ability to create a blade, on a mower, that cut at a subtle angle. Transitioning the short cut to a longer one, without the line. Does anyone think this is possible, or even a worthy solution to the standard look, most have?

[ForkaB]

Two comments.

Vis a vis the overall look and feel of a course, I think that the best courses have one, but also have one or two or even more holes that just don't quite fit, and this is good.  We had a good discussion eons ago about the importance of imperfections in art.  WE all know about Micaelangelo, but who knows about Andrea del Sarto "the Faultless Painter", except students of Browning?

Secondly, the idea of a seamless transition from rough to fairway to green etc.  Great idea.  Used to be the rule in the UK, but far too many courses are going for the shaped look these days (including Dornoch, alas ).  Hopefully the wheel will turn again soon on this particular folly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ah, now we're talking.  I finally have something to disagree with Jeff Brauer about!

Yeah, Tom, we have agreed on a few things, and I suspected you were getting worried.....

I blame the definition thing on too much TV specifically, and in the American perception generally - we seem to like things more black and white than much of the rest of the world in general.

My thoughts were really towards the contrast of sand and turf, not mowing lines through the green.  That, and the idea that the green should stand out, either by being slightly elevated out of the shadows, or by bunker patterns or other designs that give you a clue where the target is.  Of course, it varies on every green site and hole.  

In fairways, I do agree that the idea of genetic purity is folly.  I have seen tissue testing, etc. and grasses rejected because it contained, say 3% U-3 bermuda in 419, which rarely bothers me.  In north Texas, if U-3 wants to grow because of cold tolerance, etc. its much too expensive to fight that for "visual perfection."

Ditto with the idea of proportional and strictly defined rough and fairway.  We need justice for those who do wrong!  However, I think as standards rise here (new mowers being more expensive than the sheep that originally patrolled Scotlands fairways) the ideas of fighting technology AND saving mowing costs over 100 plus acres combined to fashion the strict definition we see.

The charge back to undefinition will be led by those outside golf before it is accepted by those inside golf......ie environmentalists.....

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I have been fighting a battle at my own club.  Some 30 years ago someone thought it a good idea to plant an arborvitae hedge behind a green.  It reminds some of the Green Monster at Fenway.

There may be some visual and safety reasons for putting something there but after all of this time the plants have grownat diffeent rates and the deer have gnawed at the lower portions.  Basically it looks like hell to me.  

Players love the idea of a back stop/drop into the green.  It offers some kind of certainty.  They are not listening to the Green Committee who has voted twice to remove the offending bush.  I have been unable to convince them that the flowering cherries and other specimens will make for a more attractive hole.  We have even taken photographs and have a before and after.  

Bottom line is that players want a certain amount of certainty and comfort intheir game.  The longer I look at the game the more I believe that courses need to look natural and seek uncertainty in shotmaking.  After all 100% of the game is 90% mental.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()