[Jeff_Brauer]

I am not being sarcastic here.  Of all the threads posted about studying great courses, I can't recall anyone saying what, if anything they study.

Now, as a golf course architect, I look for specific neat features I haven't seen before, or ones done better than the ones I have seen before. always with an eye towards adapting those to some future design when the right situation calls for it.

Of course, I always appreciate the overall ambiance, even knowing that it can't be recreated on different sites in most cases.

Other than that, I kind of try to zone out and enjoy the golf!

And you?  As an architecture buff, what is the main reason you study courses, and what do you look specifically for?

[Michael Moore]

Jeff -

I had a similar post inside of me but kept a lid on it.

Barney Kavanaugh used to rant and rave about "studying" golf courses.

The only thing I study at the golf course is my scorecard.

The rest is straight up appreciation and gratitude.

[cary lichtenstein]

Quoted from Jeff Brauer

"Now, as a golf course architect, I look for specific neat features I haven't seen before, or ones done better than the ones I have seen before. always with an eye towards adapting those to some future design when the right situation calls for it.

Of course, I always appreciate the overall ambiance, even knowing that it can't be recreated on different sites in most cases.

Other than that, I kind of try to zone out and enjoy the golf!

And you?  As an architecture buff, what is the main reason you study courses, and what do you look specifically for?"

When I was in the textile business, we used to look at certain of our competitors products, especially those done by their best artists. Sometimes we would pick up a new technique or a variation on an old techique or a new colorway. If we had an old document that we liked, sometimes we might apply what we learned to it in its overall design.

So, in the textile business, I did in fact study. I wouldn't use that word for golf however as I am not in that business, and play for personal enjoyment.

As an architecture bluff, I pretty much enjoy seeing either how someone like Pete Dye turned nothingness into Whistling Straits, clearly a masterpiece, as well as difficult sites like Sanctuary, The Quarry at Giants Ridge and Greywalls, where architects took on very difficult projects and turned them into amazing experiences.

At The Quarry, I especially loved the 4 short par 4's, the best collection of short 4's I have ever seen on a golf course by a significant margin.

I takes in my opinion, tremoundous spaceal vision, a true artists eye to envision what can be done with the land and then successfully pull if off so that it is playable without dumbing it down.

In my particular case, I just appreciate both the visual and playing experiemce and like to share that with others.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

I'll give you a perfect example of the little architectural things we might study, and, matter of fact, did study in detail yesterday.

We drove from Philly to Shinnecock yesterday (and back) and played and studied Shinnecock (and Sebonack).

For sometime now I've wondered just what-all it is about Shinnecock (architecturally) that makes the course so challenging sometimes. For the moment I'm only going to talk about the actual architecture and not the inclusion of how wind may make it harder.

One (among perhaps many) of the nuancy little architectural features I concentrated on yesterday was how certain areas of certain greens shed the ball off them (mostly on approach shots) due to the use of the convex angle. In other words there are numerous instances on many of the greens at Shinnecock (some virtually unseen from the approach where the ball will just roll right off the green (generally into chipping area swales) if played too close to those convex angles on portions of the sides of greens.

There are other areas of those greens where the opposite is true---areas of concave angles that bring the ball back into the green.

The subtle and numerous uses of this nuancy architectural feature is, in my opinion is one of the reasons a course like Shinnecock can be so much harder to score on than it seems, at first glance, to look like it should be.

That's an example of what exactly we do study on great architecture. It's not dramatic looking but it's extremely effective in play in my opinion and something to store in one's mental inventory if one ever gets involved in doing something in architecture or even analyzing and critiquing it comprehensively.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Cary,

Thanks for the nice comments on my shorts at Giants Ridge!

They, BTW, are a good example of what I gain by studying other work.  While the 10th is an adaptation of challenge/sucker fw shots I have used before, the 6th and 9th were two of the last holes I found in the routing.  I was hesitant to use both, and avoided it until environmental concerns on the other side of the road forced me to.

Luckily, I had recently played in Ireland, which convinced me that the narrow neck up to nine green was feasible. In fact, I almost kept the ridge in front of the tee, having just played Royal County Down, with its 11th hole ridge almost forcing a pop up tee shot.

And, had I not played Sand Hills, where I recognized that while we all love valley holes, the occaisional "ridge runner" like no. 2 at SH, the 6th might not have occurred.

The topo for the 13th didn't show up on any maps, although from site walks through deep trees I suspected there was more there than the topo.  Nonetheless, a then recent trip to Tobacco Road gave me confidence in using the wild topo there, and to a degree on the second.

So, studying competitors, even if long dead, works as well in golf design as it does textiles.  It also demonstrates what keeping an open mind, and doing several routings - sometimes against your will - can do in creating original holes, even if some ideas are incorporated from elsewhere.

I guess that opens up the next question, along the lines of the Raynor threads - what constitutes an original design idea?  Adapting it to the site? Changing an existing idea 5%?  10%?  20%? Reversing a hole, a la a reverse redan or sideways Biaritz?

That is another topic.  Don't want to drift my own topic!

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff, I study my own heart and mind, which either appreciates the response to the GC design stimuli, or not. Appreciations change, the more one learns about themselves, and the more they experience.

It must've been about 8-9 years ago when I realized my affinity for more natural looking golf course features. I think I can even pin point the feature that made me realize it. It was a left front bunker on the 16th at Spanish Bay. A par 3 hole with an even bigger bunker complex guarding the entire front rightside. The rightside bunkers had the smooth lines that are typical of most every bunker built before SandHills. But this left one, it had a dunelike look to it. A narlyness that made it blend into it's natural enviornment in a way that the right bunker complex had no chance of ever doing.

Watching that left bunker slowly become another clean lined, easy maintenance, circular like clone, was most sad but educational about my own preferences.

 The PB company has recently done that to too many of their priceless gems of natural looking nasties. What a pity!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Now that is a thoughtful reply!  When you can pinpoint one bunker that changes your mind, it seems like you do think about architecture, even realizing that emotions rather than rational study form our images of golf courses.

[ed_getka]

First and foremost I study the greens. What internal movement is there, what approach angles might work better for certain parts of the green, how the green ties into the surrounds to make the short game challenging.
     I look at bunker depth, proximity to lines of play, and how they fit into the overall look of the land.
    Needless to say I don't play very well on a course I see for the first time.

[Joel_Stewart]

Among many of things said by others, lately I have kept a close eye on mounding, shaping, drainage and especially surface drainage.  I am especially critical of overuse of man made bowls using drains.  

Over the last 3 years I have also become keenly aware of over conditioning especially on links courses.  I downgraded Cypress Point and Pebble last year because the courses are just in too good of condition for a links course.  I've said it before, I don't think links courses should be conditioned like Augusta.  

[Matt_Ward]

Joel:

Good thread question.

In simple terms -- I look very closely to see if any style of hole(s) or routing is repeated when playing. The superb courses constantly vary when they offer the player in terms of a challenge when playing. I think of a solid course like a capable pitcher -- someone able to vary speeds and placement whenever necessary. Only the great ones can do this.

Ditto golf courses that constantly keep the player off balance in the manner in which they present themselves.

[BCrosby]

Tom Paul - I like the following about your recent visit to SH:

"In other words there are numerous instances on many of the greens at Shinnecock (some virtually unseen from the approach where the ball will just roll right off the green (generally into chipping area swales) if played too close to those convex angles on portions of the sides of greens.

There are other areas of those greens where the opposite is true---areas of concave angles that bring the ball back into the green.

The subtle and numerous uses of this nuancy architectural feature is, in my opinion is one of the reasons a course like Shinnecock can be so much harder to score on than it seems, at first glance, to look like it should be.

That's an example of what exactly we do study on great architecture. It's not dramatic looking but it's extremely effective in play in my opinion and something to store in one's mental inventory if one ever gets involved in doing something in architecture or even analyzing and critiquing it comprehensively."

______________________


I can see TEP now, hitting a shot, zig-zagging between both sides of the fairway to check out different approach angles, inspectiong bunkers, circling greens, pointing out things and talking up a storm.

Great courses are full of great features that deserve your time. The greater the couse, the more time it deserves. But if the only way you study a great course is through the score you post, you are cheating yourself. At least if you claim to be a semi-serious student of golf design.

I would think that people who care about gca would take the time to check out swales, bumps and runoffs nowhere near  their own ball; that they would take a couple extra loops around a green or two; and maybe even talk too much about what they are seeing and thinking.

That's the guy I want to play a great course with. Cuz he is studying, thinking and learning and, almost always, teaching me things.

Bob

[Steve Lang]

   

Thoughts, thoughts, thoughts..

What in the world was the gca thinking there!  

What does the gca want me to think about?

What in the visuals is real or imaginary.. and if i ignore it, what's the end result?

What would i do the next time?

[Mike_Young]

For me....most definitely the hot dogs....and then metal lockers.....and then whether the towels have the the club name on them......and then....whether the scorecard is in color or basic print, die cut....and then maybe the simplicity of the tee benches, and finally the size of the pro shop.

[David Druzisky]

Mike Y,

What about the beverage cart girl!

Jeff,

You commented perfectly for me about going to Ireland and seeing something that makes ideas "feasible".  I think studying the old, especially those across the pond helps me that way.  Can I do this or try that in a situation.

It takes several trips around a course to really study it so if I am only seeing something for the first time I think both the big picture things such as routing (use of land) etc., and then the little things like bunkers, greens and such are what I take away.  It's the middle ground stuff that takes a little more time to grasp.

I remember back to LA school design class and the professor saying that it has all been done allready, just apply it differently.  Take the redan or biarritz concepts and twist them up a bit - don't just mimick it exactly.  But, you need to study the originals first.

All I know is that I just got back from "studying" Oakmont, Fox Chapel, and New Castle and I got a lot out of it.

DBD

[Tom_Doak]

For me, going back to great courses is kind of a reality check.  When we are busy building new stuff I don't have much time to see other great courses, but it helps immensely to see what a severe green looks like when you're in the midst of building them.  

Same for width:  when we are building things extra wide, it's nice to be reminded how narrow the fairways can be on the links courses and still have playable holes, as Mark Rowlinson pointed out a week or two ago.

I've deliberately stayed away from National and Shinnecock while we were working on Sebonack, because I wanted to get inspiration from other courses and not be just like them.

[T_MacWood]

"As an architecture buff, what is the main reason you study courses, and what do you look specifically for?"

The strategies, choices and creativity. The natural environment and how the golf course melds with it. How the interesting natural features of the site are utilized. The man-made contours of the fairway and greens. The hazards. The aesthetic of the architect. The best architects leave an impression that is not easily forgotten.

Why do artists study great works of art, architects study great building and film makers great films?

[RJ_Daley]

My attention often first turns to what isn't the golf course.  On more naturally desirable land for golf, I look at the surrounding land and the land between the holes.  I look at the overall location and try to understand the archie's use of the land in the overall theme of how the course is presented and how the routing uses the land.

Then I look at the details of where the hazards are placed and how the greens are placed and designed relative to the flow of the fairway and postion variety off the tee.  I try to understand if the contours were used well, if they needed to be softened or accentuated, and if it was done as a matter of interesting golf shots or just eyecandy.  

On totally manufactured sites, I look at the routing and then the quality of the grading and feature shaping work.  Again, I look for what makes interesting golf challenge and strategy and what is mere superfluous window dressing.  

I like to discover features that indicate the archie's personal stamp or trademark.  I like to find the tough places where it is apparent that the archie had to make tough decisions and perhaps compromise to make something work.  It is all the more fun to find a problem area in the design/construction process that was made to work well through great architectin...

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff,

Each architect, or course, offers a different element to study.
There is always a specific element that stands out from other elements.

For Thompson, (for me), it's the scale that he he used. Whether the mass to create amazing bunkers, the width to create panoramas, or the foresight to used "borrowed scenery" in his designs.

For Flynn, (for me-based on the 6 course I have sought out), it is his ability to apply pressure to the game. While Flynn's aesthetic side does not overwhelm me (not seen Shinny), his strategies appeal to me. His use of decepion, reverse slopes, and uncomfortable stances are all worth studying, since very few modern architects would rishk the crticism for these techniques.

For Travis, (again for me), I love the intricate nature of his greens over all other features. His use of compartments to isolate areas of green is unique to him. I also enjoy the boldness of his ridgelines and rolls to increase the dramatic contouring.

I won't bore you with more, but that is how I set out to see a course, or architect. I don't try to understand there every movement, but I do try steal/borrow some of their cleverest thoughts to be reused when an opportunity presents itself. I do think great architecture lives in the details.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Interesting that you study the architects in context, as it were.

RJ,

Your first sentence reminds me of the old saw about ice carving - just start with a block of ice and carve away anything that doesn't look like your subject?  It also reminds me of your photo critique of the Quarry - you started out wondering about between the holes on that, too.  So, you are nothing, if not consistent!

I like the rest of your post, though, in that you look in the context of the problems to be solved, and for the architects trademarks.  I wish more critics would look at courses in terms, especially, of the problems to be solved.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

I study the following facets:

1)  Drainage - The water (and the ball) has got to go somewhere.  Finding the low point in each hole has a lot to do with what the designer/constructor could or could not do within the routing.  What advantages are to be had from a strategic shot making basis can be had, especially around the green complexes?  How are the bunkers positioned to play away from the low points?  Do the bunkers involve a challenge to secure a better line on the approach, or are they positioned to trap a ball from rolling into the abyss?  Around the green, the low point will provide the best uphill putt.  Is the highest ground a sucker's play?

2) Routing.  Were there alternatives available to the architect, or is this and other holes transitions to the very best sites for holes on the plot.  18 a Yale continues to baffle me as a less demanding hole could have been routed straight through the woods back to the cart shed.  Why did C.B. & Seth send us hill over dale?

3) Construction.  Sometimes the skeleton pokes through badle maintained or eroded skin.  How were the pre-bulldozer era mounds created?  

Do items #1, 2 & 3 aid ot hinder:

4) Ease of maintainance.  Did the architect's plans leave the super with too many worn trails from the exits of greens and entrances of tee boxes?  Are the trees canopying the greens into poor root structures?

5) The blend.  If the aim is to create holes that look like they have always been there, or ones that the architect "Revealed", do the holes blend in with their surrounds as they do at #5 at Myopia or #17 at Whistling Straits?

6) The tie-in to the physical plant.  How does the entire experience work from the driveway to the course to the dirve home?  The Chechessee Club is a great example of a seamless process from the bag drop to the range to the practice green to the 1st tee.  The course is outstanding unto itself, but they also understood how to marry all the elements that come before and after the round into an integrated look of beauty and convenience.  I have been told that they built the clubhouse after the course.  In some cases, the task is harder on a resort and/or multi-course area, but was all of the effort extended on the course and the clubhouse while neglecting the practice areas.

Just some I think about while playing your course.

JWK

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

I study the following facets:

1)  Drainage - The water (and the ball) has got to go somewhere.  Finding the low point in each hole has a lot to do with what the designer/constructor could or could not do within the routing.  What advantages are to be had from a strategic shot making basis can be had, especially around the green complexes?  How are the bunkers positioned to play away from the low points?  Do the bunkers involve a challenge to secure a better line on the approach, or are they positioned to trap a ball from rolling into the abyss?  Around the green, the low point will provide the best uphill putt.  Is the highest ground a sucker's play?

2) Routing.  Were there alternatives available to the architect, or is this and other holes transitions to the very best sites for holes on the plot.  18 a Yale continues to baffle me as a less demanding hole could have been routed straight through the woods back to the cart shed.  Why did C.B. & Seth send us hill over dale?

3) Construction.  Sometimes the skeleton pokes through badle maintained or eroded skin.  How were the pre-bulldozer era mounds created?  

Do items #1, 2 & 3 aid ot hinder:

4) Ease of maintainance.  Did the architect's plans leave the super with too many worn trails from the exits of greens and entrances of tee boxes?  Are the trees canopying the greens into poor root structures?

5) The blend.  If the aim is to create holes that look like they have always been there, or ones that the architect "Revealed", do the holes blend in with their surrounds as they do at #5 at Myopia or #17 at Whistling Straits?

6) The tie-in to the physical plant.  How does the entire experience work from the driveway to the course to the dirve home?  The Chechessee Club is a great example of a seamless process from the bag drop to the range to the practice green to the 1st tee.  The course is outstanding unto itself, but they also understood how to marry all the elements that come before and after the round into an integrated look of beauty and convenience.  I have been told that they built the clubhouse after the course.  In some cases, the task is harder on a resort and/or multi-course area, but was all of the effort extended on the course and the clubhouse while neglecting the practice areas.

Just some things that I think about while playing your course.

JWK

[RSLivingston_III]

My single favorite thing is to look at early courses that are desperately in need of a restoration, preferably with an early aerial in hand, and try to "see" the original holes. Rediscovering great, currently lost, holes can be such a rush. Very painful, too.
I saw two courses this last month, Belvedere and Marquettes nine holes by Langford. It defies common sense why someone would rip the heart out of the great holes on these courses.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jeff, great question.  I look for different things on courses of different vintage.  When I played Pennard in Wales I looked at how they used the land, routing, greensites, clifftops, and natural bunkers.  At a place like Whistling Straights I just marvel at the creative genius and wonder why is that mound there? or Why this or why that.

As a general rule I will begin at the tee and see if the tee shot can be played in a variety of ways.  Often I will hit a few tee shots to different parts of the fairway to see which one gives the most advantage, which one is the most risky etc.

For the shot to the green I'll look at possible pin positions and see what different pins might require to get close.  I look at the undulations and bunkering.  I'll check out the grass around the green to see if it is ringed with rough or if has other options to chip onto the green.  Variation is important to me.

On par fives I generally spend time evaluating the second shot.  Do I just beat a three wood or long iron up the fairway or do I have to think my way to the green?

Hope this helps.

[AndrewB]

As an architecture buff, what is the main reason you study courses, and what do you look specifically for?

Great thread.  It's interesting to read what others study ...

As more of an aspiring architecture buff than an actual one, I come at this from more of a player angle than an architecture one.

I look for things the architect does to force me to make decisions when I play a hole.  This usually means having multiple options for playing a shot or trade-offs in terms of challenging particular hazards/obstacles/features of the hole.  I respect holes that make me think about these decisions more carefully and still have me uncertain standing over the ball even after playing the shot many times before.  Anytime it is not clear what the best course of action is and one must think about their options, the game become much more interesting.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()