How do you turn back the Clock ?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said;

"We’ve already discussed Aronomink and I do not want to send this thread careening off the road, but yes the current version is evidently based on a set of Ross plans, plans that were never executed for whatever reason. The course that was actually built was one of the most extreme of Ross’s career and did not have the style of bunkers that you now find."

Tom;

I wouldn't worry at all about careening this thread off course. This is an interesting subject indeed regarding the bunkering at Aronimink from the recent restoration.

We did go over all the ramifications of it and the decision making too but it does relate to this thread in some ways and it also relates most definitely to some of your own thinking, one aspect in particular it seems, so I should go over it again. That aspect of yours I refer to is that you have said a number of times you have no real interest in memberships only to what's purest to original in restorations.

First of all, Aronimink should be commended for deciding to restore back to their Ross heritage as comprehensively as they decided to. The course was an example of some real modern age architectural tampering by Dick Wilson, George and Tom Fazio and Robert Trent Jones. Luckily, the routing was not tampered with and also luckily the really wonderful original Ross greens were not really either. But the bunkering sure was.

Apparently much of the bunkering was altered, but particularly the fairway bunkering and I believe almost all the original fairway bunkering was altered or lost.

So in the restoration of the bunkering, particularly fairway bunkering there was nothing left on the ground of it to restore to. That left an aerial that was taken maybe 3-5 years after the course opened as the photographic blueprint to restore back to. However, the club and Ron Prichard found one of the finest and most comprehensively detailed sets of drawing plans Ron had ever seen from Donald Ross himself (something that Walter Erving Johnson was generally more likely to translate from Ross's notes onto drawings at other courses). But in this case the drawing plans were Ross's hand.

So Ron and the club had a dilemma on their hands. Had the bunkers been built as they appeared on that later aerial? Had the bunkers been built to Ross's plans and redesigned since the course opened? Why was the bunkering on the aerial different than Ross's detailed drawings? There was no real way to determine what had happened.

Since I live so close to Aronimink and since I know the green chairman and some of the others at Aronimink and I know Ron too Ron called me one day before the bunker restoration began and asked me why I thought the bunkering on the aerial was different from Ross's very detailed plans and drawings.

The difference, by the way, was primarily where Ross had called for a single bunker, sets of 2-3s smaller bunkers appeared in their places.

I said I had no idea but it seemed illogical to me that a club would redesign the original bunkers of Donald Ross (certainly famous in 1929) so soon after the course opened and even more illogical since it was in the depression (as it turns out, though, there was a lot of redesigning going on in Philadelphia in the depression--including my own club a number of times).

Ron said he'd not seen small bunker sets like that anywhere else from Ross except at Jeffersonville (a low budget Ross course) where apparently J.B. McGovern had been the foreman. J.B. McGovern had also been the foreman at Aronimink. So obviously you can see what the assumption was there--that McGovern may have done some interpreting of Ross's plans on his own.

Did he do it on his own or did Ross tell him to or approve of his alterations from Ross's own detailed plans? That was  unanswerable and probably always will be.

Aronimink and Ron Prichard very much wanted to do as pure a Ross restoration as possible so they decided to go with what they did know which was Ross himself actually had drawn those very detailed original plans.

When they started to go with that reasonable and logical thought there were some practical decisions that went along with it such as it would be less expensive to both rebuild and also maintain one bunker placements rather than sets of 2-3s in the place of one bunker.

You may think there's added interest to an original Ross course that a foreman like McGovern or Hatch or whomever may have done some of their own things on but neither Aronomink, nor Ron agree with that, particularly when they had detailed Ross drawings in their hand that at least they knew were Ross's (something most of those "Ross/Hatch courses probably ever had!).

Aronimink was really dedicated to a true Ross restoration and not necessarily a possible Ross/McGovern amalgamation. They did as much research as possible and I can tell you that even Ross's odd remark at Aronimink's opening was even mentioned in the context of what had happened with those bunkers. Personally I believe that remark really does indicate something.

I should also say, since this discussion group compares architects, that J.B. McGovern has never been very well respected around here. He only did a few solo courses and the redesign work he did at my course in the 1940s was totally forgettable, to say the least--and it also altered Donald Ross--and we're going to remove as much of it as possible and restore to Ross.

This is all after the fact, of course, but Wayne and I were interviewing Flynn's daughter again the other day and we happened to ask her who Flynn's good friends in the business were and also if there was anyone in particular he did not admire. We'd previously heard from her that Dick Wilson was a real pain in the ass, and a problem on projects to Flynn (confirmed by David Gordon from his father) but she surprised us by saying the only architect she heard him speak ill of was J.B. McGovern!

If I'd know that during those 4-5 times I spent time at Aronimink during the bunker decision-making and restoration I would have told them that too.

Again, they truly wanted to do what they believed was real Ross and those plans are real Ross. That's better to them than guessing on who may or may not have approved those 2-3 set bunkers.

A lot went into it in research and consideration and I should tell you that had you been out their as part of the decision making it would be my belief that you'd have been outvoted. Ron Prichard as an architect also may be the most in depth classic era historian around too.

In any case, the bunkering is restored to Ross's actual plans and it's well received it seems by most everyone and it has the added value I think that at least the design of it had been Donald Ross himself although it is true it may have been that odd and probably unique case where for whatever reason it was originally not built to his plans.

I realize that most aren't interested in reading all this detail but I know you are Tom. I am too. Ron Prichard is and so are some of those at Aronimink.

[Ken Bakst]

Rich

If you truly believe that the hole would play “exactly the same” in those two pictures, then that pretty much tells me all I really need to know.  However, if you played the hole as depicted in the 1st photo and you either plugged your ball in the face of the bunker or had to hack your way out of those native grassed surrounds, is it perhaps possible based on that experience that you might just give that poisonous little bunker a bit more respect the next time around?    

BTW, if I ever find myself standing on the 16th tee at Cypress Point, even during a casual round, without an elevated heartbeat and a sense of both fear and excitement about the shot that I’m about to hit, I will hang up my clubs!  

[TEPaul]

You see that Rich?

There's a guy who can play a little who's heartbeat increases just standing there on the tee of Cypress's #16, a hole you think is just a ho-hum long par 3 with---what is it in between? Oh no much! KenB is the premier player in NY in my book with a US national championship under his belt who get's psychologically effected to an extent from the look of various architetcure. He'd be the premier amateur in NY right now if he hadn't gotten a bit consumed building a course in Long Island and he let two old guy amateurs slip ahead of him last year.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

QUOTE"I realize that most aren't interested in reading all this detail but I know you are Tom. I am too. Ron Prichard is and so are some of those at Aronimink."

I'm very disappointed that you, of all people have to make this statement. IF there are those that have no interest in it, then they are at the WRONG website! They need to go to golfchannel.com and participate in one of their discussion groups.

I'll post this website's manifesto in case there are those that don't UNDERSTAND what I'm screaming about!

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses. Within this site, the subject of golf course architecture is discussed in several different sections, including:
course profiles that highlight the finer virtues of golf architecture found in over 130 courses world-wide. Please post any meaningful analysis you may have regarding each course at the end of its profile.
monthly Feature Interviews with a well known golf figure with past interviews archived for your perusal as well.
a free access Discussion Group. Please register and share your opinions by posting under your own name but remember: this is an architecture centric web site with non-architecture posts deleted.
an 'In My Opinion' column for you to submit detailed articles relating to the subject of golf architecture.
a 'My Home Course' section, where you may profile your home course and explain why it is enjoyable to play on a day to day basis.
an 'Art & Architecture' section in which many of the great courses are explored based on how they appeared at their inception through the paintings of California based artist Mike Miller. There is an ongoing Question and Answer session with Miller with paintings added on a continual basis.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Bakst,

So, I would imagine that Lee Trevino would have won his playoff with you at Merion, as well.  

The example of strategy I presented was an oversimplification, I didn't want to tax the group's ability to comprehend more detailed examples.  Risk/reward, prefered angles of attack, etc., etc..
But, strategy is the formation of a plan to play the hole, the avoiding of peril/hazards, and positioning oneself to take maximum advantage of the lay of the land.

I referenced the treatment of snakes that are more dangerous than other snakes in the context of bunkers, acknowledging that some are more lethal than others.

The problem with the attempt to illustrate your point through the esteemed Tommy Naccarato is that the second bunker does not contain the same physical  properties of the first bunker.  The slope is flatter, the height lower, etc., etc..  Given the same physical dimensions, with white or blue sand, the bunker presents the same strategic value.  Once you alter the physical properties you alter the assessment process and strategy.

I don't think that we're that far apart on our thinking, I just think this group tends to think in extreme terms to validate a point.  Woud the road hole bunker be much different if its face was constructed with sleepers instead of brick sod.
The look would be different, but would the playability and the strategy ?

I've got to go read a bedtime story, so I have to go.
Given the temperature, let the dog walk himself  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
"Given the same physical dimensions, with white or blue sand, the bunker presents the same strategic value."

This explains a lot about your very interesting architectural tastes. I take it the rough grass and local gunch growing around the perimeter (and in) does not alter the hazards physical property. You either need you eyes checked or you speak with forked tongue. Or perhaps you're wired differently. To each his own.

I've given up trying to convince Pat, its like trying to convince a homosexual the pleasures of woman.

[DMoriarty]

Question for Patrick and Rich:

MacKenzie purposefully shaped and placed bunkers in a manner which made the golf hole appear harder than it actually was (very visible, masking ample landing area, blending into bunkers hundreds of yards away).  The fifth at CPC is a good example.   Are such bunkers strategic or aesthetic?  

[DMoriarty]

Another question for Rich:

Does your ability to block out "aesthetics" and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?

[ForkaB]

So many questions of me, so little time.....

KenB

I assumed in my hyopthetical that the shape of the two bunkers would be exactly the same, i.e. the chance of burying in the upslope would be equal.  Of course, the fact that the 1st one has a wilder and woolier look would have some impact on how I would view any shot over it, but I think that if I played the hole a number of times, under a number of conditions (weather and competetiveness) the effect of the eye candy would diminish to near nullity.  Don't know about you, but I cannot remember EVER being caught in bunker surrounds like those in picture one, and I've played a lot of holes that look like that at a much more likely to hit an imperfect shot level of ability than you.  That's why I call them "eye candy."

Dave M/Tom H

I think that both 4 and 5 at CPC are stunningly beautiful golf holes.  To me, more "beautiful" than 16 and 17.  As I said after my first round there, it was the quality and beauty of the inland holes that blew me away.  Maybe it's becuase I wasn;t expecting it.  Maybe it's becaue I have spent most of my life near the sea and I've seen far too many great ocean views to be overimpressed by a simple set of cliffs......

As for the 4th, once you have played it you realise that the bunkers that seem in you face off the tee are in fact unreachable from the tips (maybe not to KenB).  So, they just do not matter, except aethestically.  As for the 5th, once you have played it you realize that the bunkers which clutter up the last 50-100 yards to the green, beautiful as they are, dictate that the hole plays only two ways:

1.  Hit a great tee shot curving around the left bunker and then try to go for the green

2.  Hit a not so great tee shot and then lay up short of the cluster of bunkers and then hit lob wedge

TomH, 5-iron/5-iron/LW was maybe a bit cheeky, but 4/4/LW would be not.  Becuase of the contours of the land on the second shot landing area (i.e. downhill into a gully and then up hill sharply), it does not take a lot of club(S) to get into lob wedge distance on your third (which is at the beginning of hte upslope from the gully), IMO

Anybody I''ve forgotten?  If so, I'm sure you'll let me know.....

[TEPaul]

Patrick said;

"I just think this group tends to think in extreme terms to validate a point."  

I've heard the old cliche, "the pot calling the kettle black" but this remark from Pat has got to take the alltime cake!

[George Pazin]

Patrick said;

"I just think this group tends to think in extreme terms to validate a point."  

I've heard the old cliche, "the pot calling the kettle black" but this remark from Pat has got to take the alltime cake!

I'll second that!

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

Thanks for taking the time to try to answer the many questions.  Unfortunately, in the clutter, I am afraid that one of my questions was misunderstood and the other left unanswered.  I probably wasn't clear with my questions, so please let me try again.

1.  My first question regarded MacKenzie's intentional shaping and placement of bunkers in a manner which made golf holes look harder than they really were.  Setting aside your views on how you feel you should play the fifth at CPC, perhaps you could address this more general issue:  Is the intentional distortion of the golfer's perception an aesthetic characteristic or a strategic characteristic?  

2.  Returning to your understanding or your particular game:  Does your ability to block out "aesthetics" and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?

[Ken Bakst]

David
With respect to your 2nd question, there is a very simple answer.

Yes, but only if he's able to block out the features AFTER he has assessed their functional value in determining how he chooses to play the hole!  

[Eye Doctor]

If a golfer is blocking something out, then it goes without saying that that something is in fact something. Pat and Rich may have the ability to block those somethings out but golf designers have long attempted to include visual signals that make the golfer unsteady. All, blind golfers notwithstanding, are subject to this to a greater or lesser degree. Funny thing is, until this thread, I have never heard of any disagreement about this concept. The golfer's perceptive abilities has always been used for and against the golfer by the golf designer. It is intimately bound up in the game itself. How do we turn back the clock to the time when this concept was simply taken for granted, like the effect of gravity on the golf ball, as it should be?

By the way, the focus here on "aesthetics" has really muddied the waters and used up a lot of bandwidth. You should be focusing on the term "visual signals" such as fairway lines and tee box orientation. You will get where you want to go without the muck and mire of purple grasses majesty. Or at least you should get there. Maybe it is too late to turn back the clock to the point of any kind of agreement here. Although, if TEPaul did happen to agree with me it would be nice.  

[DMoriarty]

Yes, but only if he's able to block out the features AFTER he has assessed their functional value in determining how he chooses to play the hole!  

Now if this is his answer that will raise a whole host of questions, don't you think?  

But let's not get ahead of ourselves . . . I am really interested to hear Rich's answers.  He has seen me play CPC 16, so he knows that I need all the help I can get when it comes to learning how to ignore the superfluous on the golf course.  

[ForkaB]

Dave

Thanks for the bold type.  We geezers need these visual aids from time to time....

As to question #1, I am on record many times in my belief that neither a golf hole nor a course nor an architect can be considered "strategic."  A golf course is just a venue within which strategy can (or cannot) be planned and executed by the golfer.  An architect (MacKenzie or MacGonigal) can create a venue which is more or less interesting strategically, but he or she does not create strategy.  (Sorry for the rant, but I have spent most of my life studying and teaching strategy, so I like to set things straight in these areas....).

As for your specific question, IMO any attempt to distort the golfer's perception by the architect is neither aesthetic nor strategic, per se.  It can be either or both or neither, depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer.  Is that a great non-answer or what!  I shoulda been a lawyer.......

2.  My "blocking out" abilities are highly exaggerated, particularly from those like yourself who saw me play my "A" game at an A+ venue.  Many on this site have seen my B, C, D and unmentionable games.......I do tend to play better in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues than the average player, but that may just be because I am such an all around good person.......

[ForkaB]

Yes it does, shivas.  Hard to believe, but I am not perfcet.......

[TEPaul]

"2.  Returning to your understanding or your particular game:  Does your ability to block out "aesthetics" and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?"

DMoriarty:

That question of yours to Rich will be interesting and whatever answer Rich gives will be interesting to see too.

Personally, I feel that question and the true answer to it amongst golfers generally is a most fundamental one. I think it's a global and most interesting subject and one worth exploring beyond this thread which in my opinon will never go very far or be well understood using a word such as "aesthetics" only.

Probably a better context to put this subject in would be what all influences the effects of psychology (or specifically concern and fear) in golf and architecture amongst golfers generally?

My personal feeling having seen reams of all types of golfers in my life is that probably never or at least rarely ever is any golfer immune from the psychological effects of courses and aspects of their architecture and particularly relating to concern and fear. A good deal of the latter obviously would fall into the category of how any player views "consequences" at any particular time.

It's obviously how they deal with important feelings of concern and fear which generally relate to the subject of failure that's of most interest. The question and subject of failure and fear of it I believe is a fundamental that no golfer is immune to and very much resides in the realm of "consequence" relating to what he thinks, decides to do and does do on a golf course at any time but which also should be looked at in a kind of continuum, never being static or absolute at any time.

Max Behr has said that good architecture "makes a call upon intelligence". And he goes on to say that to answer the call upon intelligence is really nothing more than a rational application of experience.

I think those things are a given basically to all golfers, no matter who they are and how well they deal with those concerns and fears. I believe everyone has them and the process they use to deal with them can be called "compartmentalization". How well any golfer answers that call to intelligence, to use experience, to compartmentalize concern and consequence is what makes any golfer better or less good at the game.

"Compartmentalization" in good golfers is not really a means of becoming completely oblivious to areas of danger in golf architecture, only to deal with it intelligently--and generally that takes experience, or better said, requires experience--which is understanding the actual consequences of it filtered through one's ability to understand realistically one's limitations (and the degree or percentage effect of one's limitations).

But if someone like Rich Goodale says to me that he just happens to be one of those people who is completely oblivious to the actual dangers of architecture and golf courses and has not ever had any negative psychological impact from those dangers and concerns I would not really believe him. And secondly I would say that attitude or condition if actually possible would ultimately hurt his ability to do well or score well in golf generally, not help him.

And I also think that Ken Bakst's post above explained so well in detail various actual architecture and why that can prove that psychological effects from architecture and its ability to create various degrees of fear and concern and failure and the consequences of that is never absolute. Matter of fact, given how it actually effects any golfer at any partiucular time can prove that it works in a continuum of ever changing degrees of psychological effect always relating to ever changing experiences.

That to me is a given and a known commodity almost that all good architects understand and apply well in what they create.

[TEPaul]

Rich Goodale said this;

".......I do tend to play better in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues than the average player, but that may just be because I am such an all around good person....... "

I feel this is a real truism with me and in my experience in competitions and significant ones to me it's undeniably true. But clearly not with everyone--perhaps just the opposite.

But the key word here is "unfamiliar venues". Why would Rich or I play better at unfamiliar venues? I'm not sure why Rich thinks he does but I know why I do and I would be most shocked if they weren't exactly the same. And that would be that at unfamiliar venues we both may tend to be more cautious--to pay more heed to psychologically effecting features and such, in other words.

The reason I know I play better at unfamilar venues is because instinctively I'm a conservative golfer (interestingly possibly the opposite of Rich) and I instinctively became used to identifying well what's safe and what isn't--what's dangerous and what's less so.

But I believe the real reasons beyond that I was always able to play better at unfamiliar venues is because I had NO NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES at those venus! No real negatives to psychologically effect me, concern me, scare me--no bad memories to psychologically influence me.

It's interesting that some of the best scores I ever shot at various courses is the first time I ever saw them. I can't imagine what could make Ken Bakst's point better about the collective impact of architecture over time through any golfer's collective experiences or those negative experiences ability to create psychological effects on any player. And always in an ever changing way and in a continuum of degree, in fact.

I do see, though, other golfers who unlike me don't have the natural inclination to be conservative on unfamiliar venues and go out and attack an unfamiliar venue aggressively and get killed by those unfamiliar venues time and again.

Those are the golfers who will play a course better and better generally the more they get to know it. I hate to say, but my own experiences are generally just the opposite. Over time the negative experiences of a golf course as I become more familiar with it weigh on me more and I never seem to play so well. It's stupid really and probably just means I should go back to my natural conservatism always.

But I think this kind of remark, particularly coming from Rich Goodale (he plays unfamiliar venues in competition better) only confirms Ken Bakst's point just how much architecture does have a visual, perhaps an aesthetic and psychological impact on golfers although they may not be willing to admit it. Rich Goodale should admit it because I think he's just about in line with what Ken said although Rich may not yet have gotten around to saying that yet.

And I think Rich's admission that he does play unfamiliar venues better in competition bascially proves the architectural point Ken Bakst has been making. And of course that point is the aesthetics of architecture does have a psychologic effect.

Pat Mucci should do the same. He should reread that post of Ken Bakst (and his son) and agree with it--but of course he never will. To Pat acknowledging that an opinion is someone else's and admitting he agrees with it is mutually exclusive.

[TEPaul]

"But let's not get ahead of ourselves . . . I am really interested to hear Rich's answers.  He has seen me play CPC 16, so he knows that I need all the help I can get when it comes to learning how to ignore the superfluous on the golf course."

DMoriarty:

The best help you'll ever have for that kind of thing is experience and learning how to use it to your advantage.

Rich Goodale will scream and disagree but Max Behr was right about this. Golf architecture and good golf architecture most of all will make a "call upon intelligence". A golfer will always do best if he answers that call by using his experiences as intelligently as he can.    

[DMoriarty]

I am experiencing quite a lot of Internet Communication Frustration ("IFC") caused by the difficulty of getting into any kind of conversational ebb and flow.  It seems that every time I ask a question I fail to get an answer.  If I try to simplify the question, I get an evasive answer, at best.  Probably a problem with the way I am asking my questions, but frustrating none the less.  As opposed to abandoning the line of questioning altogether (as I have done in the past) I will presumptuously provide the answer I think would have been given had the question been answered, and continue on.  I am positive I will be corrected if my presumptions are incorrect.  

Whether I am correct or incorrect, I have a feeling that by posting as I do below I will at least gat an open and direct response.

Rich
I asked "Is the intentional distortion of the golfer's perception an aesthetic characteristic or a strategic characteristic?"  You answered:

"As for your specific question, IMO any attempt to distort the golfer's perception by the architect is neither aesthetic nor strategic, per se.  It can be either or both or neither, depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer.  Is that a great non-answer or what!  I shoulda been a lawyer......."

I agree . . .  this is a great non-answer, and you should have been a lawyer--  I didn't realize my question was so ambiguous. Let me try to read between the lines and see if I can find an decipher an actual answer.  I assume when you say "it can be either or both or neither depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer"  you are acknowledging that, at least sometimes:
A skillful architect's intentional distortion of the golfer's perspective can be somewhat strategic.

I also asked "Does your ability to block out 'aesthetics' and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?"  You answered

My "blocking out" abilities are highly exaggerated, particularly from those like yourself who saw me play my "A" game at an A+ venue.  Many on this site have seen my B, C, D and unmentionable games.......I do tend to play better in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues than the average player, but that may just be because I am such an all around good person.......

This is perhaps a better non-answer than the first.  Again, reading between the lines, and ignoring the additional variables you brought into the question/answer (my perception of your game, others' perceptions of your game, your ability in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues, and your undisputable goodness as a person) I conclude that, while you may not always be successful at blocking out aesthetics (you say your "abilities . . . are highly exaggerated"):
When you are able to block out "aesthetics," you have a competitive advantage over those who cannot do the same.

Here is my problem, if I have accurately transformed your non-answers into answers, then I really don't understand where you are coming from on this thread, and others, when you characterize certain features (such as the bunkers on CPC 5) as "eye candy" with no strategic merit.  If they alter the choices different golfers make, then they have strategic merit.  Just because you ignore or block out a feature doesnt mean that everyone does.  

In fact, that you are able have more success than others by mentally blocking out the architect's slight-of-hand is not only a testament to your ability to concentrate, it is also a testament to the strategic merits of the hole in question.  Two groups of somewhat equally situated golfers (in this case you vs. your opponents) view the same hole and see multiple paths to success, and therefore adopt different "plans of action." (Yes, I am treating state of mind as a path to success.)  What else could a "strategic golf hole" accomplish?  

The only way I can reconcile all this is to assume that your understanding of strategy in golf is very different than the views of many others on this board-- Ken Bakst, TEPaul, and me, to name a few.  Moreover, now that I know you are some sort of an expert in the field of strategy, I will go even go further--  I think your view of strategy in golf is  egocentric, narcissistic, and so narrow so as to be meaningless to anyone but you and your own view of your own game.  

Take  your "rant" at the beginning of your post:

As to question #1, I am on record many times in my belief that neither a golf hole nor a course nor an architect can be considered "strategic."  A golf course is just a venue within which strategy can (or cannot) be planned and executed by the golfer.  An architect (MacKenzie or MacGonigal) can create a venue which is more or less interesting strategically, but he or she does not create strategy.  (Sorry for the rant, but I have spent most of my life studying and teaching strategy, so I like to set things straight in these areas....).

Pardon my ignorance on the subject (I've neither studied nor taught strategy),  but I think of "strategy" as a "plan of action."  Because this is a thread on architecture, I was focusing on the architect's "plan of action," not the golfer's.  Now, the measure of the success of the architect's "plan of action re the golfer's strategic challenges" may well be the extent to which the golfer must come up with his own "plan of action" to get around (or over) the architect's strategic placements.  But to discount architect's contribution to the strategic nature of the golf hole is overly simplistic.

Think of MacKenzie's wartime example which he used to explain what he called "a strategic system of golf course bunkering."  According to MacKenzie, the British commander didnt realize that the Boer leader was master of camouflage, so the Brits bombarded then advanced on Boer earthworks which appeared to shelter the opposition.  When the Brits advanced they found that they were attacking a decoy and that Boer's were actually hiding in low-profile, camouflaged trenches away from the more obvious earthworks.  The British were trapped.  

So MacKenzie views golf as having two strategies, that of the architect (the attacked) and that of the golfer (the attacker).  Like the Boer's, the architect sets the field of play by strategically positioning, utilizing, and creating features, and by creating certain perspectives.  It is then up to the golfer to navigate these strategic placements and perspectives.  Like the Brits in Tugela, the golfer risks peril if he plans his attack without understanding and planning around (or over, or through) these strategic placements and perspectives.  

On the other hand, you seem to view strategy only through your own eyes.  After seeing a hole once or twice, you understand enough about it to avoid the aesthetic features (like the bunkers on CPC 4 or 5, or the ocean carry on 16) and those features are rendered "eye candy" and non-strategic.  It is only rightly called "strategy" if it forces you to question your plan of action.  What about the rest of us who don't fully grasp the hole the first time we see it.  Or, even if we do grasp the hole, what if we are unable to escape our previous faulty perceptions and still make an erroneous plan of attack or are unable to follow a correct one?  Is the hole strategic to us, at least?  

Take your very interesting "This Could be the Last Time" posts.  You correctly note that first timers have a harder time understanding "the tricks of the architect" than old timers.  You also state that "hazards that look gnarly to the newbie are just eye candy" to members and that "places that may look peaceful to the newcomer are places we avoid like the plague."  By the sound of it, and by your definition of strategy it would seem that members' courses are only strategic to guests and never strategic to seasoned members.  Do you really believe this or am I misunderstanding you?  Please explain?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Pat
"Given the same physical dimensions, with white or blue sand, the bunker presents the same strategic value."

This explains a lot about your very interesting architectural tastes. I take it the rough grass and local gunch growing around the perimeter (and in) does not alter the hazards physical property. You either need you eyes checked or you speak with forked tongue. Or perhaps you're wired differently. To each his own.

I've given up trying to convince Pat, its like trying to convince a homosexual the pleasures of woman.

Now you're confusing the color of the sand within the confines of a bunker to the surroundings outside of the bunker.

If you can stay focused, tell me how the color of the sand alters the strategy of the bunker ?

DMoriarty,

I would say that the bunkers are primarily strategic.
That they were constructed in a manner such that they blended in with more distant bunkers has nothing to do with aesthetics, although it may be visually pleasing, it has more to do with camoflaging and deceiving the first time player with deceptive signals to the eye.

Once the blindness of the fairway becomes apparent, subsequent play discards the deceptive signal.
But, don't all blind shots do that, irrespective of the intervening form/feature causing the blindness ?

Do you think that Hogan, Snead, Player, Nicklaus, Watson and Woods focus/ed on aesthetics when they play/ed.

TEPaul & George Pazin,

I never excluded myself from the statement when I referenced "this group" and extremes.  Wouldn't you call Tommy Naccarato's bunker example "extreme" ?

Eye Doctor,

I think the process is one of focusing on the order of priorities, the play of the hole, the strategy.
One's powers of observation aren't shut down, making one oblivious to one's surroundings, but, if the object is to get the ball into the hole in the least amount of strokes, the mind should not be distracted or dwell on non-strategic features.

I would agree with you.  Visual signals are provided by the physical properties of what one faces in the play of a hole.  Aesthetics are those frilly things with the "proper" colors that the aristocrats like.

[ForkaB]

Dave

Please remind me to get you on my side if I ever have any litigation in SoCal.  You ask more and harder quesitons than even that Austrian policeman who gives Steve Martin a "drunk test" in "The Man with Two Brains."

To me a golf course is a strategic venue, i.e. a tapestry over which golfers develop and try to execute golfing strategies.  The design of the course influences both the choice of strategies and the likelihood that they will be executed properly, which influences the choice, etc. ad infinitum.  Choice and execcution are also strongly influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as weather, the psychological state of the golfer, the knowledge of the golfer (genral and specific), the maintenance of the course, well, just about everything we talk about on this site.

I fully admit to the charge of being narcissisistic.  The way I look at any hole, from 16 CPC to #1 at my local track is compeletely unique.  But, so is yours, counsel.  We are all individuals, who look at all things, particularly golf holes, very differently, depending on all the factors I have listed above.  Based on this look, which varies every time we play each hole, or even each shot, we choose, implicitly or explicitly, a "strategy" for that hole or that shot.  Then we try to execute that strategy.

It's really not any different than what the Marketing Manager at Coke trys to do each Thursday when planning his advertising and promotional strategy for Von's vis a vis what he thinks Pepsi is going to do, or what Tommy Franks is trying to do right now vis a vis what is on the ground in Iraq and which way the international politicians (i.e. the "weather") are blowing.

However, a golf course is no more "strategic" than is a map coordinate in Iraq or a supermarket in Southern California.  They are just places where strategy can be practised, by individuals, like you and me, who are, by definition, unique.......

[dm]

I would say that the bunkers are primarily strategic.
That they were constructed in a manner such that they blended in with more distant bunkers has nothing to do with aesthetics, although it may be visually pleasing, it has more to do with camoflaging and deceiving the first time player with deceptive signals to the eye.

 
I agree that the described bunkers are strategic, but would decline to call them primarily strategic, because I see no reason to quarantine strategy from aesthetics, or to rank strategic merit vs. aesthetic merit.  

As for the blending of non-adjacent bunkers having "nothing to do with aesthetics" I would disagree.  MacKenzie disagreed also; beautiful, natural looking features were one of MacKenzie's primary goals:

Properly designed bunkers should grip the golfer's imagination, impart a challenge, but they should look natural; seemingly part of the surrounding scenery.  The greatest compliment that can be paid a golf architect is to have players think his artificial work is natural."
(quote from Bob Davis excerpt from p. 29 of Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club (Geoff Shackelford.))

So MacKenzie, at least, wasn't willing to discard aesthetic in the critique of architecture, and neither am I.  

Once the blindness of the fairway becomes apparent, subsequent play discards the deceptive signal.
But, don't all blind shots do that, irrespective of the intervening form/feature causing the blindness ?

I understand what you are saying, but don't entirely agree.  Sometimes there is a world of difference between what should be readily apparent and what the golfer actually perceives.  For example, I get a sensation of entering the unknown whenever I hit a blind shot, even if I know what is on the other side.  It isnt rational, but the sensation is there nonetheless.

Do you think that Hogan, Snead, Player, Nicklaus, Watson and Woods focus/ed on aesthetics when they play/ed.

 Good question.  Yes, I think that Hogan, Snead, Player Nicklaus, Watson, and Woods all focus(ed) on aesthetics when they play(ed).  While they probably didnt give any consideration to flower beds adjacent to tees, I would think that they all shared the good sense to strategically consider aesthetics whereever those aesthetics could even remotely influence play.  And since most aesthetic features have some strategic consequence, they should be considered.

Take, for example, the seemingly silly example of the color of sand in bunkers, mentioned by you above.  In addition to influencing the golfer's perception of the beauty and verisimilitude of a hole (see TEPaul's post well above), the color of sand might also alter the golfer's strategic perception of the hole, and the golfer would do well to be aware of this.   [It may be worth noting that in the same "camouflage" story recounted above, MacKenzie also discussed "protective coloration."  Apparently, MacKenzie thought that the use of color was an important element in deception.]

Highly visible, bright white bunkers might mess with the golfer's depth perception, or might draw attention to themselves and appear larger and more in play than they actually are. In contrast, more subtly colored bunkers might be less noticable and appear to be less of a potential pitfall than they actually are.  Or, bunkers that blend seamlessly into their surrounds (adjacent dunes, for example) might create the illusion that the surrounds are more in play than they actually are. Such bunkers might also create an ambiguity as to just where the hole ends and surrounds begin. On the other hand, bunkers that sharply contrast with the surrounds might provide the golfer with a definite visual cue of what is in play and what is not.

Further, different types of sand have vastly different playability characteristics, and to the experienced eye, the color of sand may well indicate the type and playability of sand.  For example, if Nicklaus is playing the red clayish sands of his Lanai course, he would do well to notice and remember that particular sands playing characteristics.  The same goes for different types (and colors) of sand at any course.  

At Old Work's in Montana Nicklaus (or his people) created black bunkers consisting of neutralized, ground slag-- almost pure carbon.   I would assume he did this to create a unique visual effect and to blend some of the colorful history of the site into the course.  Whatever his intentions, he created bunkers that play differently than most bunkers (I find it incredibly easy to hit out of these bunkers and I am a terrible bunker player.)  Taking this into consideration might  alter a player's strategy of attacking the course.  

Moving out of sand and onto grass . . .  Most people see an overwatered fairway and they see a beautiful, green course.  I see plugged balls, no bounce, and a loss of strategic options.  Or take firm, fast, and a little brown-- many see an ugly, dying golf course.  I see options opening up all over the place.  So is grass color aesthetic or strategic?  Like most other golf course features, it is both.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, I am the dm above.  

I reread a few of your past posts and I think I may have put my finger on our fundamental disagreement.  Our differences may come down to a disagreement about the nature of strategy.  You repeatedly characterize strategy as an absolute.  I must disagree with this assessment.  

First, I dont really understand what you mean-- strategy is an absolute?  Absolute what?  Absolute as opposed to subjective?  Absolute as in complete?  Are you talking Platonic forms here, and suggesting that somewhere out there their exists the Platonic Ideal of a Redan hole?  

Second, "strategy" loses all meaning once it is removed from the context of the course.  How do you describe a Redan without reference to golf course features and context?

Take replica courses, for example.  If I understand your view of strategy correctly, we ought to be able to take a particular strategy template, and exactly duplicate the strategy on another course.  Yet, although I have never played any of these courses, I would guess that most of these copycat courses fall flat when it comes to duplicating strategy.  

If strategy is absolute, why can't I successfully build Saint Andrews or CPC in the middle of Arizona?