[paul cowley]

Tom Paul posted a quote from Bobby Jones in the Crane versus Behr lengthy on going thread that I found interesting and relative to another debate that has also been lengthy and ongoing....but this one has been internal.

It challenges the design constraints I feel while responding to fixed points in the mid bodies of holes and the strategies of play [or lack of them], that emanate from these points.

  These are Bobby Jones' words:

“Employing a comparison with our own best golf courses in America, I have found that most of our courses, especially inland, may be played correctly the same way round after round. The holes really are laid out scientifically; visibility is stressed; you can see what you have to do virtually all the time, and once you learn how to do it, you can just go right ahead, next day and the next day and the day after that.
  “Not at St. Andrews. The course is broad and open, and the rough is distant, and the fairways confront you in every direction. The greens are huge. And with all that, and with almost all the visible universe to shoot into, you may plume yourself on any round of 72 or 75 that falls to your fortune there. From tee after tee, you are offered almost all the real estate you can cover with your drive. But you would better place that drive with some thought and exactness, or your second shot will be a terror. The fourteenth hole, for example—I think it perhaps the finest on the course---may be played four different ways, all correct and widely at variance, according to the wind. And the wind is a worthy foe. It is just as likely to oppose you all the way out, and turn as you turn, and battle you all the way back. Or it may follow you around the entire horseshoe. You must use something besides shots and clubs, playing St. Andrews. I can learn more golf in a week on that course than in a year on many a sterling championship test in America."

I like what he is suggesting here.....not so much about the wind....but more about options of play.
I think it also corresponds well with one of TP's posts about designing a hole with match play options more in mind than a hole with specific dictates.

I have identified four basic hole types.....none of which depend on fixed points of play.

I call them the Curves of Charm and Dueling Diagonals.


The Curves of Charm, or CC's, have three main types, all of which have reverse versions....the 'S', the 'C', and the 'J'.....and their hazard placement responds to the curving nature of the holes...along the edges or even in the middles.
These layouts can be subtle or exaggerated.
The key is that they flow....unlike a dog leg.

The Dueling Diagonals, or DD's, are needed to create holes whose hazards require a less sinuous element, but are more like a series of diagonal hurdles.
DD's are generally more parallel than opposing.
Opposing diagonals of play are better classified as an 'S' curve.

What I find exciting about these fours types of hole layouts is that they can all fit into a straight corridor, or a curving one....given proper width....and that the main elements they create are essentially 'Cape Hole' strategies that allow the players skill level, or the conditions of the day, to make  decisions that are not as dependent on an ideal fixed point in the field.

I think in the future I might abandon putting out turn points in the field, and just fix the beginning and ending points of the hole.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Obviously you're onto something very important in that post.

I noticed this kind of thing in something of a humorous way when Dottie Pepper described one of the holes in the last US Women's amateur as a "straight dogleg" which surely sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it was obvious what she meant by it on that hole.  

As off-set angles of all kinds (non straight to the basic direction of play) are probably the fundamental element of all interesting golf architecture there's obviously a lot of angles to work with.

It's quite interesting in that Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie et al debate which is sometimes referred to as the "Penal" (Crane) vs "Strategic" (Behr, Mackenzie and Jones et al) debate that one of Crane's favorite features in golf architecture was what he called the "Double Diagonal".

If you want to see an example of perhaps the ideal "Double Diagonal" fairway let me take you to The Creek club and show you the short par 4 10th hole. The point of it is if you play too aggressively you don't make the carry on the near side but if you play too conservatively with the basic diagonal of the fairway you run right smack out of room on the other side.

The reason I mention the "Double Diagonal" regarding Crane's apparent fondness for it is because if that architectural arrangments is not basically the height of "strategic" and multi-optional golf, then I just can't imagine what is.

[paul cowley]

Tom.....the hole types I suggested are really just strategic templates. They can be used to create an entire course on a flat field in Kansas, or they can be adapted to fit a hole that already has 'givens'.....either rolling topography that already has features one needs to react to, or existing [or created] water features etc.

Par threes utilize the single diagonal, and on occasion the 'C', or 'J', as found on a Redan for instance.

Par fours are really holes where your first shot is just seeking a favorable tee from which to play your second shot as a par three.

Par fives can play as a drive and a long par three if one is going for it in two.....or use two shots to set up a short par three.... a short chip or pitch.

The original Cape hole is a classic 'C'....while the par four 7th hole[?] at Seminole is a great DD.

I think Ross did a great job utilizing the 'S' types on many holes with a straight corridor of play.

[TEPaul]

"....while the par four 7th hole[?] at Seminole is a great DD."

Paul:

It's the 6th hole---the hole Hogan claimed was one of his favorites anywhere. The DD set-up is basically at the green and green-end however. The fairway is basically a right to left canting affair. The combination of the two really is excellent.

[paul cowley]

Tom....I might have the wrong hole...it has bunkering running along a ridge that runs parallel, but everything including cants, run from left to right.....I could have dreamed this as I have only walked Seminole, and at my young age have a more difficult time remembering hole sequence and numbers....but not the holes themselves.

I hope Tom D never loses his recall ability....its a good tool to have.

[Mike_Young]

Hey Paul,
Don't you think they still need to be staked whether they become dominate or not.  I mean if they are staked and 100 ft stakes are spaced in between then I feel I have a better sense of where I am when deciding not to use them.  But that could just be me.

[paul cowley]

Miike....have you ever just torn down a dogleg stake and put a hazard there?....I have on numerous occasions, which is partly responsible for this thread.

[Mike_Young]

Yep....sure have.....usually a centerline bunker....but the turnpoint stake allowed me to know where that point was......and the 100 ft stake from tee to turn sort of gave me a better perspective.....I agree with you...my big issue right now is I am sick of people waiting 6 and 7 tees..I am going back to three and no more.....hell when I get that many tees turnpoint could be anywhere....

[paul cowley]

Mike ...I agree about multiple tees...which is another reason for this thread.

If the terrain permits, I have begun to arrange the tees along the spine of the CofC's....that way the landing areas for each move along the curves and don't create a dogleg jam where all the second shots are from the same place and the same length....which really doesn't favor the player of lesser ability... but instead spreads the holes strategy more equally  along the course of play.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul
I'm glad you came back to this idea.
In your thinking here, what is the minimum width you could work with? What would be an 'ideal fairway width'...say, on that flat Kansas site? And, do maintainence practices become of more/less/the same importance on an "S" that on regular holes?
Thanks

Peter

[paul cowley]

TomP....lets use Newark as an example...the final version

#1 is a combination of both the S and the reverse S...if we get the centerline hazard correct.

#2 is so far a botched S, that needs to get the fairway hazards reworked and move the right fronting greenside bunker.

#4 is also a botched S so far.

#5 is a good reverse C par three.

#6 is so far a good S, with a DD option.

#7 is a DD.

#8 is a good C, almost a J.

#9 is beginning to be a DD, with a C option.

#1O is setting up to be a DD.

#11, 12, and 13 are up in the air for now.

#14 favors a reverse S.

#!5 is a good S, probably the best to date.

#16 is a good reverse S.

#17 is agood C par three.

#18 favors a DD format.

IMO...

[TEPaul]

Paul:

As time goes by I guess I'm getting more and more directional dyslexic. I did say Seminole's #6 has a fairway that runs right to left but I meant to say it runs left to right.

[paul cowley]

Paul
I'm glad you came back to this idea.
In your thinking here, what is the minimum width you could work with? What would be an 'ideal fairway width'...say, on that flat Kansas site? And, do maintenance practices become of more/less/the same importance on an "S" that on regular holes?
Thanks

Peter

Peter....the course I just posted is on a very compact site, probably about 140 acs. It has a core routing where many of the holes have to "spoon" with the adjacent ones so to speak....so width is a major consideration that influences the play corridors of many holes.....but it works there on relatively small corridors.

Where space is not an issue its great to spread these strategies out. I recently played Stranz and Fezler's Bulls Bay, and they made ample use of great widely sweeping "S" types......but I think a good balance of wide to narrow corridors provides the most interest.

Maintenance is really not an issue any more than for most courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - thanks.

I don't know much about these things, but 140 acres seems a very small/compact site by modern standards...so all the more reason for congratulations on what you're thinking/doing there. I think it's very important to the future health of the game that TE's Big World theory include Small Site courses, especially those with imaginative strategies/approaches.

Peter

[paul cowley]

....and thank you as well for your part in the Crane thread...although its been taking me at least two glasses of wine to read through it...or is that understand it?

[John Kirk]

bump

Nothing to add, but I believe this is a valuable thread.

[Mike McGuire]

Paul -

I am having difficulty imagining all of the concepts you describe. Is it possible to post illustrations or images?

[paul cowley]

Mike....I wish I could because my verbal and writing skills lag behind my drawing skills....I am much more comfortable with a pen in my hands, and these concepts are fun to illustrate and diagram.

The golden agers would try to illustrate this with various centerline strategies, often multiples....but they used various straight lines of play that often utilized a non constant shot length....typically for the drives.
I think they did this because the emphasis was less about "par"....an ideal that represented the play lines for the better player. I think they were more interested in illustrating the choices of play for different skill sets to reach the same goal.....options of play.

That is what I am trying to describe, but in a more curvilinear basis....but alas, the SEC has too much going on at the moment....maybe I will try to better describe things when Ga finally puts Tech away again

....and thanks John for the bump.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - maybe this will help a bit. Paul - I hope you don't mind this, but here's a quote from another post of yours where you first explained the "S"...
Peter
 
"Imagine a slightly bending 's', with the tees on one end and the green on the other. Now also imagine the tees arranged along this spine as you have already suggested. Now also imagine a series of hazard along the left side of the midpoint of the spine. These could be sand or water or anything really......but the main thing is that they provide a 'cape' type challenge....of various difficulty...starting with the more severe from the rear tees, while progressively less as you move forward.

Now also imagine some form of hazard or challenge to the right side at the green at the end of the 's' spine [you are now beginning to feel vary sleepy]....but also imagine an open front to this green, but remember that the centerline of the green is also aligned with the spine of the 's' curve, so it is really aligned on a slight diagonal when viewed from what ever landing area you happen to find yourself in.

Now imagine all the angles of play that occur from various points along the spine. Now also imagine this 's' as a much more exaggerated one, with hazards along both sides of the spine [now I'm beginning to get very sleepy ].

That's enough for now....but if you want to explore this further on your own, just use the same analysis for the other two main Curves.....the 'C' and the 'J'."

[paul cowley]

Thanks Peter....I had forgotten that one.

Upon re reading it, I immediately went to Modify, but couldn't, as its your post.....the gist is there though.

[Mike McGuire]

Is this a good example of an "S" ?

 

[paul cowley]

Mike .....excellent!!!

Now that I have you, try a more exaggerated one if you want, or a slightly less aggerated one if you prefer....and don't be afraid to vary the hazard placement to both sides....or add water ....or a crossing hazard or a pinch point.

or OB even.....or combining multiple curves or DD's if the width of play allows.

Remember this is a two plane concept only....without benefit of the "givens" of 3D found when one approaches topography and site constraints.

Please knock yourself out with "J's and C's" etc if you want to....I love it.

[Mike McGuire]

Paul-

Please comment on this illustration of a of a "C" hole.  I am still struggling with  the concept of a "double diagonal"

This is an interesting exercise. One the the complaints I have with our Langford nine is the holes are essentially straight. The par fives used to curve, and we are aware of it, just a matter of putting it back.

Also I would imagine a "J" hole could also be upside down, more like a candy cane.

[paul cowley]

Mike ....that's a good "C", with center hazards that don't rely on water for strategy on its inside curving edge....align your tees more along the curve.

The "J" is an exaggerated "C", but you are correct that it is essentially upside down at its beginning.

Think of a DD as two parallel and diagonal slash marks....one in the landing zone, and one as part of the green complex.....diagonal hurdles.

[Mike McGuire]

TEP -

Is this the 10th At The Creek Club you refered to as a good example of a "DD"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()