Garland:

This Geoge Bahto feature interview addresses this topic at least in part:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewbahto.html

Jason,

Thanks for the pointer. I had not seen that before.

However, I am trying to get more depth. Bill Coore is famous for spending a lot of time at a site finding holes. What are that patterns that he sees that makes him choose a particular hole? Are they the same patterns that others see? Has anyone cataloged such a thing? Perhaps naming an example like Redan would mislead you as to what I am looking for. Surely Bill Coore is not setting out to recreate Redan, Alps, Eden, etc. as CB MacDonald and others did.

Which problem does the Redan solve?

Some of the problems the patterns would solve in GCA are are always the same: What type of hole would fit into a routing here? What type of hole would be of strategic interest?, etc. Perhaps the most significant problem is the terrain and features of the land to be utilized for the course. If the land is eastern SD farmland, then satisfactory solutions begin to require a lot of earth movement and the Redan certainly solves the strategic interest problem.

Here it is:

George,

Here is my take, from my Cybergolf series.

Strategy starts at the pro shop, where players “buy a better game.”  But, smart on course strategy lowers score, with obvious cost advantages and better odds of success!  

Golfers make strategic decisions, even on holes without strategic qualities.  They must:

•   Know their distance with each club
•   Adjust for wind, uphill/downhill conditions, and slopes that affect distance or roll.
•   Account for daily variances in weather, hole locations, and game situations
•   Aim correctly, allowing for shot pattern, wind, and lie.  Trajectory and spin control is becoming as or more important than curving the ball these day......

For many, those demands are enough – or too much!  Nonetheless, strategic choices make it even more fascinating!  I exploit the universal desire for lower scores* by placing hazards requiring mental agility to conquer.  It starts on the tee shot, which all fall under these classifications:

“Heroic”

Heroic holes have dramatic options of driving over non recoverable hazards, versus playing to a safe fairway.  Examples include:

o    “Cape Holes,” with a diagonal carry over lake, or

o    “Challenge Fairways”, where an alternate fairway straightens/shortens the hole significantly.

Heroic holes work well downwind, tempting golfers to carry hazards, and increasing the value of open front greens, as the wind will reduce approach shot backspin.  These holes reward length, so I limit their use.

“Strategic”

Strategic tee shots come in a few different philosophical types:

•   “Position paradox”

You really need to find a certain fairway position, but really, really, want to avoid surrounding hazards!

•   “Variable”

Daily wind conditions and pin locations dictate possible advantages.  These require wide fairways, staggered bunkering, and greens with multiple pin locations.

•   ”Democratic”

These accept most shot patterns, with advantage coming from playing to your strength.

•   “Diminishing Returns”

Gradually narrowing fairways create dilemmas between the advantages of shorter approaches versus missing fairways.  On long holes, the length advantage is usually very strong; but on short holes, it’s less.  

These work best on medium par 4’s, and reachable par 5’s.  

“Penal”

Penal tee shots come in three varieties:

•   “Forced Lay Ups” caused by full crossing hazards limiting full tee shot distance.  Up or downwind, or downhill complicates getting close to the hazard without going in.

•   “Forced Carries caused by full crossing hazards requiring minimum length tee shots to reach the fairway.  These are sometimes necessary, but provide little strategy, so I use them rarely.

•   “Bottleneck“, requiring shot placement in a narrow landing area, surrounded by trouble.  

“Hybrid”

There are other tee shot strategies, which have as much “challenge” as strategy:

•   “Cross Slope fairways” dictating “high side” play, or a combination of flat areas and rolls providing advantages in limited areas.

•   “Forced Curve.”  Ground hazards suggest curved shots.  Well placed trees dictate them!  Golf shots reach horizontal and vertical apex 70% through flight.  Encroaching trees 180-200 yards from the back tee best accommodates curved tee shots, but require wide fairways, so all shot patterns can hit some part of the fairway.

•   “Open Field” with little difficulty, providing either equal access from everywhere (useful on public courses and opening holes), or with a green creating “delayed penalty” from certain areas.  

•   “Battlefield” with randomly strewn hazards.  Little used, unless some areas have fewer hazards than others to create some strategy.

With an infinite number of subtle variations on these tee shot concepts, it’s a shame that so many courses have blandly repetitive tee shots, when they could easily have 14 distinct full tee shots!

My last project was derailed by a guy who was more interested in the theory of design patterns than in designing software, so I need to clarify this buzzword . . .

A design pattern solves a specific, repeating, and unglamorous problem. Saying that the Redan template hole is a design pattern is like saying that Microsoft Word implements the "word processor" design pattern. The Redan does not answer a question, it creates the problem "I have to put this Redan somewhere". It can be thus labeled as an anti-pattern.

Jeff Brauer is on the money here. "How can I build this bunker so that A- the sand to green ratio is correct and B -it is maintainable." He has a bag of tricks for that, his design patterns.

Here's a golf course architecture design pattern called the "Pile" pattern, which can be deployed when the ground where you want your fairways is solid granite.

Rich -

You know, when I first played Belgrade Lakes, I was put off by the aesthetics of the rockpiles, which are numerous and vast.

But once you krush a drive into a pile and watch the astounding "rub of the granite", you will see that they are a delightfully random hazard. Everything from lost ball to an additional eighty yards.

Garland:

From the way you describe it, what you call "design patterns" I just call basic "strategic concepts". Either way the architect is just trying to do things or make things that will make or allow various golfers to think certain things and do certain things----eg (concepts).

Garland:

From the way you describe it, what you call "design patterns" I just call basic "strategic concepts". Either way the architect is just trying to do things or make things that will make or allow various golfers to think certain things and do certain things----eg (concepts).

I think design patterns go a little farther than strategic concepts. Design patterns describe when to apply the strategic concept. When given the flat SD farmland, design patterns have less influence on which strategic concept to apply.

My last project was derailed by a guy who was more interested in the theory of design patterns than in designing software,

I think the number of software projects that have been derailed by design patterns is truly insignificant to the number of software projects that are derailed in general. So I don't see your need to bring that up here.

so I need to clarify this buzzword . . .

A design pattern solves a specific, repeating, and unglamorous problem. Saying that the Redan template hole is a design pattern is like saying that Microsoft Word implements the "word processor" design pattern. The Redan does not answer a question, it creates the problem "I have to put this Redan somewhere". It can be thus labeled as an anti-pattern.

Isn't this a bit myopic? When the terrain of the land matches the terrain of a classical Redan hole, isn't one answer to what strategic design pattern fits here the Redan? I think you are approaching this discussion from the viewpoint of an architect that moves a lot of dirt as opposed to a "renaissance" or "minimalist" viewpoint.

Jeff Brauer is on the money here. "How can I build this bunker so that A- the sand to green ratio is correct and B -it is maintainable." He has a bag of tricks for that, his design patterns.

Granted, there a lot of design patterns that real golf course architects have to deal with beyond those that we armchairs take the most interest in (and Jeff would be one of the first to point that out), but a catalog of such design patterns would be of interest to a much smaller audience.

Here's a golf course architecture design pattern called the "Pile" pattern, which can be deployed when the ground where you want your fairways is solid granite.

BTW, how is golf in Maine? Is the snow gone yet?

Yes, we have been open for two weeks and I have four rounds on the books.

Which Redans are built on naturally occuring "Redan-like" terrain? I honestly don't think I have seen one or a picture of one.

How about the 14th at Doak's Apache Strongholde

Hi,

I'm bumping this because i feel like Garland was onto something here, and the thread got offtrack (perhaps we should even start a new one?).  The inherently blurry definition of "pattern" is perhaps the culprit.  

If you refer back to Garland's first post he cites Christopher Alexander's "A Pattern Language"... well, the inspiration for me bump this thread was that I recently found an abbreviated version of "A Pattern Language" online, for reference:  

http://downlode.org/Etext/patterns/index.html

This is (arguably) key reading for designers, and placemakers.  There's no question that there has to be some sort of crossover to gca - which i think is what Garland is after.  The book is littered with diagrams, which make many of the patterns crystal clear - unfortunately unavailable in the online version.

The key here I believe is the definition of "pattern" - Garland quoted Alexander saying:

"Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice."

If i could BOLD, i'd highlight "...without ever doing it the same way twice."  Keep that in mind.  

You'll notice in Alexander's patterns (of which there are 253, but by definition, there could potentially be thousands...) work at different scales - starting with large, sweeping regional scales, and moving in slowly to detailed patterns, specifying materials and even dimensions.  

Alexander states that his patterns may or may not work alone, but are most effective when used in conjunction with patterns at other scales... for example - Pattern 157: Home Workshop - may be also used in part of Patterns: House Cluster (37), Your Own Home (79), Scattered Work (9), Network of Learning (18), Men and Women (27).

A key to interpretting this is that like in all things design, there are no hard and fast rules and that these patterns were written purposely vague in some cases to encourage personal interpretation... the designer can pick and choose as he/she sees fit, using pattern(s) in whole, or in part...

So.... now the question is, how do we apply Alexander's placemaking theory to golf course architecture?  Its easy to look at golf course design and apply some of Alexander's patterns.. for example, a new urbanist type of approach to a golf development might incorporate parts of Pattern 3 - City/Country Fingers, 30- Activity Nodes, 31- Promenade, 37- Cluster Houses, 67- Common Land etc.

To paraphrase Garland's question - are there any golf specific patterns that can be developed?  I think Garland may have missed the mark with identying template holes as patterns, however, the theory of a "Cape"-style tee shot may work...

Perhaps if we look at different scales, much like Alexander does - start wide - ie/ patterns of site selection, routing... and then move in to detailing... I think something like "bunker edges" could qualify.

I'm not exactly sure where this is going.... and much of this post is a bit rambling... Maybe i'm wayyy off base, but I enjoy this kind of pseudo-intellectual theorizing.

Garland,

Not at all... you brought the "intellectual" to the table.  I bring the "pseudo" all on my own.
 
rc.