[TEPaul]

A couple of years ago Tom Doak mentioned on here that he'd become far more interested in backgrounds.

I assume he meant backgrounds behind a hole or holes or particularly a green-site or proposed green-site and probably off a course's property over which he had no control. Mark Parsinen mentioned the same thing about a year ago when we visited him in New York City. Parsinen seemed to be speaking about his interest mostly in a routing sense.

I'd be delighted to hear from our architects how they feel about backgrounds (particularly over which they have no real control), how they may meld or match or even juxtapose (contrast) something they do architecturally against various backgrounds (Shadow Creek's lush theme juxtaposed against stark desert mountains). Or why and when they decide to attempt to avoid some background or cover it up. It'd be nice to know too what or whom they think influenced them and how their thinking evolved on the subject of backgrounds.  

[mike_malone]

 I have often said my favorite trees on my home course aren't on the course. They are beyond the property for a mile or so. They provide a great backdrop on our elevated #7 and #11 holes. Many people comment on the beauty of these holes. It is the background that does it. I believe many of these trees might have been there when the course was built.

[TEPaul]

On the subject of backgrounding I should say that the recent photo-shop presentation by David Moriarty on the "Barney/CPC" thread showing alterations to the backgrounds of CPC's holes #13 and #16 is really interesting and good stuff on here. I wonder how some of the old fellows would've reacted to photo-shop in architecture if they could've used it or had it presented to them.

[TEPaul]

There is probably little question either that the backgrounding as far as the eye could see on the pre-construction site of PVGC was a mass of small scrubby trees and dense underbrush as far as the eye could see (way off the actual property). Those who described the site pre-construction did mention that most all the trees and vegetation were not tall or large (it was desribed a primarily scrubby trees and dense underbrush) and one can certainly see that on early on-ground photos.

Had that site been logged or perhaps subjected to massive forest fires a decade or two before Crump found it? It sure looked to me like most everything there was of a relatively recent "second growth" nature.

I wonder how those who found and viewed the site back then felf about that or imagined how it would actually look perhaps eight decades hence.

[mike_malone]

 Interesting thought about "backgrounds". The first time I played Tattersall, I looked way in the distance from the #2 hole and asked" What is that ?" I was told " That's  the back nine!"

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
The Pine Barrens are really amazing. There are 100's of species of flora and fauna, many of which come to their northern or southern terminus in that area. The area sees its share of fires.    
http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/Pages/cmp.html#forest
http://georgcrt.securesites.net/pinebarrens/

In what now seems like another lifetime I used to dismantle, repair and reassemble antique house and barn frames. On one job the client asked us to repair a frame on-site before we built it and he asked that we use period methods and tools.
It was definitely a Sturbridge Village-like experience. Hand drills, slicks(wide, big chisel) and saws instead of powered ones, pegs made with a drawknife, etc.. It was an interesting experience but we all came to the conclusion that if power tools and electricity existed when these frames were first built no one in their right mind would refrain from using them.
One note, even though we regularly used power equipment for other jobs there still remained much hand work using tools that made the transition from olden times to modern ones.

I think this pertains to GCA, too.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I'm in the airport this morning, headed out to Montana to work on the routing for a new project.  I've spent the past two months (or at least the portion of that time I've been in the office) working on the topo maps to look for potential holes, and I think I've got a pretty good routing drawn up already ... although it's the biggest site we've ever worked with and it's hard to get my brain around it all.

However, I won't REALLY know whether this routing is good or not until I get out there tomorrow and walk it and see what I'm looking at.  I'm confident that the contours within the golf holes will work (although a couple of them are pretty severe because the land is hilly).  What I don't know is what the backgrounds for the holes will be ... whether I'm taking advantage of the mountain views and the creek, whether any of the holes are playing directly toward a power line in the far distance, whether any of the holes will just feel awkward because of visual issues.  I could have to change the whole thing around, or it could be perfect, but it's mostly the backgrounds and the visuals which are going to make the call.

I'll let you know in a couple of days how it turned out.

Once we get past that part of the routing, there are the little details that mean a lot ... exactly which trees do you clear and which do you leave to make a nice background, what elevation do you put the green at so the flag is flying against a nice background instead of cutting the top edge of a ridge in two, where might we put a bunker behind the green, etc.  I'll try to think about all the various categories of that and get back to you.

But by far the most important thing is simply that whenever possible, all of the green sites should tie into a natural topographic feature behind them or in front of them or close to one side.  If you have to put one completely out in the open, then you need to think about the background most carefully to make it look like it was meant to be there.  (Mark Parsinen and Kyle Phillips did that extremely well at Kingsbarns.)

[TEPaul]

"Interesting thought about "backgrounds". The first time I played Tattersall, I looked way in the distance from the #2 hole and asked" What is that?" I was told " That's  the back nine!"

Mayday, that's one of the funniest remarks I've ever heard on GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com. I'm personally going to tell Rees that (even though he had virtually nothing to do with Tattersall--Keith Evans did) who I just might see in about 5 or 6 weeks.

Could you find a nice Motel 6 or something to stay the night in on your lengthy cart journey to the back nine Mayday? And furthermore if you don't agree to put that bunker in on Rolling Green's #7 forget about just getting beaten up in a dinner on Friday night by me and Wayne-----we're gonna do worse than that to you----we're gonna make you WALK Tattersall---ALL of it!!

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Thanks for that post. The more you say about that kind of thing, the more detail, the better, in my opinion. If that doesn't generate some serious architectural subject interest on here I will be disappointed. It may not be as interesting to some as who's ranked second in the state of New Jersey, but whatta you gonna do?

[Doug Wright]

TEP,

This is a very interesting topic. One might ask--what does a background have to do with a golf hole at all? But from some recent experience it can make a lot of difference in depth perception and just pure enjoyment of a golf course. In particular, I've seen it in tree removal programs that expose open areas behind greensites (ie eliminating backgrounds), eg Ron Prichard at Minikahda. It's not just backgrounds either--removing "sidegrounds" to open areas up also works for me, such as happened at my club recently when a bunch of pine trees died along a par 3. It was like a new golf hole--wind could circulate better, better grass growth, etc.

Not intended to move OT to tree bashing, just my 2 cents.  

[ForkaB]

Is there a difference between "backgrounds" and "framing?"

Doesn't any attention to "backgrounds" evidence a move away from a focus on the game of golf to a focus on golf as an economic experience?

Maybe this is a good thing........

[Andy Doyle]

Good Lord - to a very amateur GAC enthusiast, the number of things that have to be considered in coming up with a good course design is overwhelming.  To find individual golf holes on a piece of property is difficult enough, but to tie them together in a cohesive routing is daunting.  The possibility of having to adjust the whole thing to make the visuals work is mind-boggling.

Maybe it's easier when you're walking around looking at the property, but I would think my brain would be frozen by all the possibilities.  

AD

[Mike_Cirba]

Is there a difference between "backgrounds" and "framing?"

Rich,

I was thinking the same thing and came to this compromise..
I'd say that the difference between the two is that backgrounds generally deals with natural elements that would exist with or without a course there.  

Framing, in my mind, is largely man made and exists within the course internals.

[Neal_Meagher]

I'd like to take Tom's thoughts one step further about site-checking holes that look pretty good on paper but that don't allow you to really get a feel for the background.

It is a pretty straight-forward excercise to walk about a farm field or a wild grassland that is to become a golf course with topo map in hand, identifying features as you go.  This easily allows you to see not only the background but the entire hole and how it will feel and play.  This becomes much more difficult in wooded or brushy areas.

For instance, I'm struggling with a site now that is pretty much wall-to-wall 10' high brush.  Solid.  We HAVE to make as intelligent a decision as possible about the best places to have the holes based solely on topography and aerial photos.  Once we start clearing, and only after that, will we know what the baackground will be (and the actual ground contours for that matter).

That is a moot point if the site is flat.  In that case you will just have a wall of cleared 10' high brush.  But, with some elevation thrown in you do have varied background conditions that overlook other parts of the site and surrounding sites.

Of course it is imperative in this kind of clearing to slowly integrate the fairway into the surrounding brushy areas.  We have all seen the quick and dirty approach which results in that solid wall of straggly looking small trees and large shrubs.  So, by selectively removing the lower material you get a nicely integrated "look" that amplifies playability to boot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am working on a course in Kansas right now, and the backdrop is a couple of twenty train per day railroad lines.  Sometimes, just when a train provides a perfect backdrop, the damn thing moves again, leaving us with more cornfield.....

[ForkaB]

I am working on a course in Kansas right now, and the backdrop is a couple of twenty train per day railroad lines.  Sometimes, just when a train provides a perfect backdrop, the damn thing moves again, leaving us with more cornfield.....

Jeff

How about a local rule:

Teeing off this hole without a train in your line of vision is prohibited.

Penalty:  Stroke play--stroke and distance.  Match play--loss of hole.

[Sean Walsh]

I have little or nothing to add to this thread but feel the information contained therin is too interesting to have fallen off the front page already.

bump

Nice to see some great input from our working architects

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I don't know whether considering the backgrounds counts as "framing" or not but to not consider it would be pretty silly.  Do you think it's an accident that the 8th fairway at Dornoch looks down and out to Embo, or that MacKeznie's holes are so pretty to photograph?

An update from Montana:

It was sixty degrees when we got here yesterday afternoon, and it's a good thing we stayed out there late to see what we could, because today we were tromping around in two inches of snow!  This may be one reason Montana is not a big golf state yet.

Anyway, we walked a good part of my paper routing yesterday and were very happy with the results, with the exception of two things:

1)  you could see that power line in the distance from too many spots and my 17th hole would play right toward it; and

2)  none of the holes played directly up the hill toward the mountains, which are more spectacular than I remembered.

As we were heading out at the end of the day, though, we had to stop to open a farm gate and lo and behold there was a great hole ... playing across a valley off the tee and straight up toward the mountains!  (It looked about 400 yards last night but paced off to about 530 this morning.)  So today we've been working on alternatives which would bring that hole into play and eliminate some of the closing loop to avoid the power line view.  All because of backgrounds.

This property is much rockier than I remembered (it could cost a million or two more to get the rocks out), but the variety of terrain (both the topography and the mix of trees and open ground and long views and the creek) is truly spectacular.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Of all the glorious sights in Sutherland, I would think that any view of Embo would have to be at or near the bottom of the list.........

...but, then again, I'll be in Embo this weekend, at Grannie's Heilan Hame, and I'll see if the 8th looks better from the reverse angle.  Actually, I have seen the hole from Grannie's, and it is spectacular!  Not sure, however, if that is what Duncan, Stutt, McCulloch and Grant were thinking about at the time.......

Cheers

Rich

[James Bennett]

Tom Doak's comment about the use of the mountain's as a backdrop reminded me of two contrasting courses at Coolum on the Sunshine Coast, just north of Brisbane.  'Mt' Coolum is a volcanic outcrop (I think) that takes about 30 minutes to climb - a little like that 'Mountain' in Close Encounters of the Third Kind). It dominates an otherwise flat landscape.

The Hyatt Resort is a modern resort course, well constructed and designed in the resort course style (it is where the Australian PGA is played),  The holes generally run along the side of the Mount, but not directly towards it.  Other holes run alongside the beach (although unfortunately the sea is not visible because of the local vegetation). Its a great holiday spot, with a very relaxed atmosphere.

Next door is the local Mt Coolum Golf Club, used regularly by the local population (largely retirees).  A completely different type of course, low-cost, with compeltely different patronage but with a few absolute crackers of holes (and a few very average ones).  There is a par 5 that plays directly into the Mount, where you feel you are in the shadow of this massive structure.  An absolutely fantsatic backdrop for this hole, and something I will always remember.

I also recall playing in the highlands of Bali at Bali Handara nearly 15 years ago, A Thompson Wolveridge design I think.  The course is laid out adjacent/in a volcanic crater, with many holes playing along the crater.  However, there were a couple of holes (front nine I think) that played straight towards the high crater hillside.  Again, absolutely fantastic.

Is it more difficult to incorporate such backdrops into holes, because of the lie of the land (steepness)? Is it easier to build a course that plays around the strong features, so creating 'sidegrounds' rather than 'backgrounds'? The backgrounds are more memorable.

[Jim Bearden]

While I thought that when somebody said the design of Pebble Beach is averaerage but the background is what makes it great 5they were crazy however if you moved it inland it would be just an average course.

[Mark_Fine]

Interesting how only a month or so ago, some could not be convinced that what was "off the property" was still part of the architecture.  

[Voytek Wilczak]

Interesting how only a month or so ago, some could not be convinced that what was "off the property" was still part of the architecture.  

I walked the site of Liberty National in Jersey City last Sunday (as I am wont to do every other week just because I happen to live nearby) and I have to say that it is very cool to be able to say on the fourth tee: Just aim a bit right of the Empire State Building. Or aim at the Statue of Liberty on the second hole, etc.

But in the end the golf course has to stand on its own, no matter what the background.

[T_MacWood]

Bernard Darwin, 'Troubles of a Golf Architect: The Dead Cat and the Tin Can' (1920) describing a newly created hole that was a mirror image of the 17th at St. Andrews:

"...This hole is not only of interest because of its creator's amusing notion; it will have, I make no doubt, plenty of intrinsic merits; it will most certainly be not at all an easy hole to play well. And yet--here we come to the inevitable limitations of the architect's art--I do not think anyone will be really thrilled by the playing of it--not at any rate for some time. And here are the reasons. The Station-master's Garden has a pretty, rustic sound, full of wallflowers and pansies; it consists in fact of an ugly back shed. But ugly as it is, it is good deal prettier than a bare patch of ground enclosed by two strips of rough hedge and littered with all the varied and agreeable ingredients of a dust heap. Further, alas! the line of trouble to the left, previously described in general terms, consists in fact of a hedge of most un-golfing appearances partially concealing a factory, while behind the green is a row of nasty little villas.

The architect can make greens with undulations that will bring tears to the eye where one there once was only flat, muddy field of rank grass; he can bunker them within an inch of their lives; he can demand shots of amazing skill and beauty full of intentional hooks and slices. But a single dead cat or tin can will undo all that his skill has accomplished, and men will flee from his masterpiece to play the most cut-and-dried 'drive-and-pitch' hole with a view over a blue distance and a background of silver birch trees."

[TEPaul]

"Interesting how only a month or so ago, some could not be convinced that what was "off the property" was still part of the architecture. "

Mark:

What's off the property is not part of the architecture. If the architect has no influence whatsoever over what's off the property how could it be part of the architecture?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()