[Tommy Williamsen]

When I was in England last spring, I played some wonderful courses.  Four or five were what we would call heathland (St. George Hill, Swinley Forest,Beau Desert and Delamere Forest).
Each time I got there they I heard a similar refrain, "You should be here in a couple of months when the course plays like it was designed to play."  Meaning fast and firm.  Generally speaking,courses outside of summer and fall are not going to play F&F in England.  
What would it take to design a course that would play "as designed" in "winter/spring" conditions.  `

Would it mean playing a different set of tees so that bunkers etc would be in play in wet conditions?  Different pin placements when the greens don't run as quickly?  Adding a second set of hazards off the tee?  Narrowing the fairways?
Then we might hear,"I'm glad you are here in the spring because the course plays differently than in the summer and requires a different set of skill."

[TEPaul]

Golf courses that have really good ground game architecture basically are designed for all conditions.

[JESII]

I say go where the weather is warm and there should be a golf course ready for you...

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy - qood question (I started asking myself that half way through reading your first paragraph)

Jes II - sound and sensible advice, as always.

TE - what 3-4 courses do you think manage to accomodate this "all-season game" best? What, if anything, do they have in common besides this trait (e.g. do they share the same designers/design schools; similar topography etc)?

Thanks
Peter

[JESII]

TEP,

I know you'll answer as well, but to me the issue is...when you're built with the ground game in mind it can still be great fun when it's soft and slow. On the flip side, when you're built purely to test the aerial attack and the ground gets to be rock hard, it's no fun.

Ironically, Tommy W started this thread talking about a few heathland courses that very likely are built with rock hard turf in mind. Like the rest of us however, the locals there want guests to see their course in its best light...

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am really asking, "Some courses, links, heathland etc are designed with the ground game in mind.  Should the architect also design the course with a second kind of strategy in mind for wet weather?

TEP, I think you are correct that a course that is designed for the ground game can be good for softer conditions.  Yet the strategy is different.  Tee shots that may run through the fairway when firm are easier when wet.  Should the fairways have hazards for both?
Shots into the greens require different skill sets when firm or soft. Would it help if the greens were so designed that would require as much precision for both?  For instance, there might be pin placements that are unfair in firm condidtions but not when you can fly the ball all the way to the hole.

[James Bennett]

Tommy

a front pin on some firm and fast holes can be impossible to attack.  But that pin might be ideal when the green is holding.

If you get your drainage and irrigation about right, you can still be firmish and fast in winter (well, it depends how cold a winter you are talking about).  If you end up with soft surrounds, then firm greens are not really as desirable.  Get the surrounds renovated to play firm and away you go, year round.

James B

[Peter Pallotta]

I must have some serious blind spots, gents, because I can't get my mind around this. The reason I asked TE about the 3-4 best examples of "all-season design" is so I can get a mental picture of what such a course looks like.

What puzzles me is, for example:

if a bunker is far enough off-line or far enough from the tee that it only becomes a hazard under very firm and fast conditions (when a ball can potentially bounce along until it finds that bunker), how is that same bunker any kind of hazard under wet/no-roll conditions?

Peter

[TEPaul]

Tommy:

Sean's right, the best way to adjust a course's tee shots in vastly different conditions (f&f or soft) is with tee marker adjustment. Plenty of the old architects wrote about that very thing, perhaps Ross was the clearest.

On second and approach shots I think your thought above is correct.

[Marc Haring]

Sean

The courses on that Bagshot sand belt do not drain well. They need alot of help. The sand actually has a large silt component that blocks up any natural drainage. Believe me, I know, I had to keep Camberely Heath playable through several winters and it wasn't easy. All those trees and shade don't help either.

[TEPaul]

"TE - what 3-4 courses do you think manage to accomodate this "all-season game" best?"

PeterP:

You know that is a really good question and my observation and answer will probably either disappoint or piss off some people.

For a golf course to be ground game accomodating on approach shots architecturally the approaches have to be open somehow to accomodate a ground, run-in or bounce-in shot. If a hole doesn't have any of that basically the approach is aerial demand and an aerial requirement for everyone.

Most on here seem to think that most all the old classic Golden Age courses were ground game courses and ground game accomodating throughout but the fact is many of them weren't and most of those that were considered the best courses had less of it than any of the others.

I'll give you some good examples. Three of the best of the real early Golden Age courses, NGLA, Merion East and Pine Valley have between 6 and 8 holes that require aerial shots from everyone. Those holes have no architectural ground game component at all.

But why was that in an age where the ground game really did function in certain weather conditions?

I think the obvious answer is those courses were actually designed to be what they called back then and some of us call today "shot testing" courses.

In other words, they were designed to test various types of shots (almost always the aerial shot) by basically requiring them---eg there was no architectural bounce-in ground game option.

So what where those who were incapable of managing that "shot test" or requirement supposed to do?

Ahhh, well that is the very thing that so many today seem to fail to recognize or understand.

What those golfers who couldn't manage the demand shot were supposed to do is just consciously lay up and try to make up that semi-lost shot on the next one. That option was one that was so much more accepted back then than it seems to be today.

For some reason even some of the best analysts of classic architecture think great strategic courses should offer all golfers some way of getting to the same point (particularly greens) in the same amount of strokes.

Unfortunately that's just not the way they looked a golf back then and the fact is those courses that were and still are considered to be the best had less holes with ground game approach options than most any of the other courses of that time.

It was a conscious architectural "shot testing" mentality and it was a reality and it's pretty ironic that so many think it was the other way around.

What I do to start to figure out if a course is "all season" designed is simply count up the number of holes that have some kind of bounce-in option.

One I'm dealing with now is The Creek Club in Long Island. It's an excellent Macdonald/Raynor course and essentially it only has one hole that has no bounce-in architectural component at all. That's a big difference compared to NGLA, Merion East and Pine Valley.  

[TEPaul]

"Which handful of clubs get it right wet or dry/aerial or ground?"

Sean:

What do you mean by get it right?

What's "right"?

Perhaps by that you mean what some have been proposing on here for years----eg for a golf course to be "ideal" there must be some way for it to practically accomodate some player actually putting the golf ball around the course.

Unfortunately most of the best architects of the 20th century  did not subscribe to that philosophy of quality golf architecture.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I concur that the best way to handle different playing conditions off the tee is by moving the tees around.  I wish courses would do it more often.  In recent years when the conditions have been either very wet or windy I have moved to different sets of tees.  It is not much fun playing a 440 yard par four into a stiff breeze with no roll.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE,
thanks. I think I'm one of those that vaguely assumed all the great classic courses allowed the "run-up approach" all the time.

So -- it's a combination of tee-marker adjustment (for the first shot) and (for the approach) a set of greens that on some holes accomodate running the ball up, but that also have different pin positions for different conditions. Is that getting warmer?

"What those golfers who couldn't manage the demand shot were supposed to do is just consciously lay up and try to make up that semi-lost shot on the next one. That option was one that was so much more accepted back then than it seems to be today."

That's interesting. I wonder if that's one of the reasons for the bogie-card (if that's the right word) in addition to or instead of giving the "par" of the course, i.e. for in the past saying things like "bogie for this course is 81", as if it were a given that there were some shots that some golfers would not be able to excute.

Peter  

[JESII]

Adjusting tees to keep hazards at the same playable length seems too contrived...I thought one of the very greatest things about this game was the very real potential to play a different golf course every day...why would we try to monotonize a course with something like keeping the driving hazards in play to the same degree year round?

[JESII]

Sean,

I fully agree with the notion of playing holes from different yardages to gain a different perspective, in fact I prefer one set of tees that uses the full gamut of tee space.

Moving tees up in soft conditions so that you have to play the hole the same is what I don't get...please explain the joy!

[TEPaul]

"Adjusting tees to keep hazards at the same playable length seems too contrived...I thought one of the very greatest things about this game was the very real potential to play a different golf course every day...why would we try to monotonize a course with something like keeping the driving hazards in play to the same degree year round?"

Sully:

That's an excellent question. Why indeed?

Maybe it was because golf was just becoming a little too consumed with a thing called "par".  

[JESII]

Tommy:

Sean's right, the best way to adjust a course's tee shots in vastly different conditions (f&f or soft) is with tee marker adjustment. Plenty of the old architects wrote about that very thing, perhaps Ross was the clearest.

On second and approach shots I think your thought above is correct.

TEP,

Can you explain what some of the old architects wrote about this concept? Were they adjusting the tee markers inversely to how the course plays (ie: soft and cold, move the tees up)? Or was there some other rationale behind their writings?

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
Can you explain what some of the old architects wrote about this concept? Were they adjusting the tee markers inversely to how the course plays (ie: soft and cold, move the tees up)? Or was there some other rationale behind their writings?"

Sully:

No, that was pretty much it. I'll find you Ross's specific quote on that if you'd like.

[JESII]

You're right, you did...I apologize. It never occurred to me that playing a longer course in the soft cold winter could be sold...

[TEPaul]

"I never said you need to move tees up in winter."

No kidding. Have you ever tried to play a course in the winter when the ground is frozen solid and there's no ice or snow?

You want to talk about firm and fast?

It's ridiculous---totally over the top "through the green" and on the greens!

MarkB:

I think you mean it should be called the Scofield GC and St Thomas More should be offered a life membership. Or just belay that---didn't you know Paul Scofield is St Thomas More?

[TEPaul]

MarkB:

That was so true of Olivier---basically he thought the whole "become the character" Method Acting thing (Strasburg, wasn't it?) was for the birds!

But that Hoffman really is something. I saw him eons ago in New York in what I think was probably the first play he did. During a scene he cut the wholly shit out of his hand. I remember thinking that they did that amazingly well to look that realistic. I mean he really cut himself---blood all over the place. It wasn't until after the play the audience found out that wasn't part of the play. But noone knew---he just rolled it right into the scene without blinking an eye.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()