Variety--Is it important in evaluating architecture ?

[mike_malone]

  My evaluations of both Winged Foot West and Hidden Creek were similar in one respect. I thought the greens were out of balance with the teeshots for the  par 4's and 5's. It seemed to me that the challenge at the greens was noticeably more than  what came before. In some respects Bethpage Black had the opposite issue ; less interest on the uphill greens than the teeshots or approaches. The National Golf Links stood out as a recent example that had this variety.

     It just seems to me that great architecture should have balance because the game is based on each shot not just a few.

[Tom_Doak]

Mayday:  A lot of architects define "balance" as having the same number of doglegs to the left as to the right, which I think is pointless.  Ballybunion mostly goes left, and it's still great.

I do think the kind of balance you cite is important, but I would prefer to call it "variety" instead.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mayday:  A lot of architects define "balance" as having the same number of doglegs to the left as to the right, which I think is pointless.  Ballybunion mostly goes left, and it's still great.

Tom,
Did you consciously try to create left vs. right variety at Texas Tech?

Mayday,
Have you been to Texas Tech or Rustic Canyon?
Would those be similar for you?

Shivas would argue I like big fairways because I miss less - but they can be more strategic...  

[mike_malone]

 DMoriarty

  Those that disagreed with my Hidden Creek perspective said what you said. But I think if I miss the "subtle challenges" it is a problem with the architecture.  Many times  one can see  where the best teeshot should have been  after they are on the green.I thought it made a small difference where you hit  it off the tee there , not enough to engage my intellect  at a high level. So, one often comes away from courses like this saying" Man , the greens were outstanding."


    I should probably say " Is it enough that the green complexes are great? And do you usually see more challenging greens on courses with less challenge before that?"

    I wonder if the relative reduction in interest on the greens in the uphill holes at BB were intentional. Was the designer concerned that the course would just be too tough?

[George Pazin]

Re: subtlety, I guess that is a personal preference thing. Unlike mayday, I greatly prefer subtlety, as I think the alternative is clearcut boring golf. Certainly not boring in a challenge sense - heck, a driving range is challenging for me - it's just not nearly as interesting.

As for variety, I personally look for interesting, fun, entertaining holes that have a sense of flow. I'm not a fan of imposing varietal or balance constraints like par 3s that box the compass, a balance of left right v right left doglegs, a balance of short par 4s and long par 4s, etc., as I feel it might interfere with the interesting-fun-flow thing. When it comes naturally, fine, but I don't necessarily seek it out.

The Rawls Course fits my bill in spades, but off the top of my head, I don't even know what the variety or balance was specifically like, unless I go through the round in my head again. It was just fun.

* Also, my recollection of how TRC was built was that they trucked in the sand, created the land movement, and then designed the golf course around it, which certainly wouldn't lead to conscious creation as Mike N asks. But I could be totally wrong in this recollection - hopefully Tom will set me straight.

[Mike Nuzzo]

* Also, my recollection of how TRC was built was that they trucked in the sand, created the land movement, and then designed the golf course around it, which certainly wouldn't lead to conscious creation as Mike N asks. But I could be totally wrong in this recollection - hopefully Tom will set me straight.

George,
While it sounds great, I don't think that earthwork was random.  I assume Tom started with the macro environment - drainage and water retention - all the water is captured on site - I believe.  Then when about creating landforms to meet both needs - the other being excellent golf holes.

Here is my speculation:  The parcel of land was a big square.  Tom identified a clubhouse location in the south west corner - shorter entrance road - wind - sun angles - Jerry's request or some other reason.  He then took the rest of the property and split the square into two triangles to route each nine - it is my belief that if you start with an appropriately shaped property it is easier to get excellent holes.  A triangle lends itself to various playing angles.

I would have also guessed the site was balanced (cut and fill), no need to import materials.  The topsoil was managed and I assume a decent growing medium - it was a farm.

Was it sand capped?

Cheers

Mayday,
The greens at TT are all excellent.  And to George's testament the course is very playable - big fairways.

[A_Clay_Man]

One of the tells of forced variety, is predictability.  At TT, I had no clue what was coming next. It really is a place one would never tire of, after many repeated plays. Regardless of how many people go there.

[JESII]

 My evaluations of both Winged Foot West and Hidden Creek were similar in one respect. I thought the greens were out of balance with the teeshots for the  par 4's and 5's. It seemed to me that the challenge at the greens was noticeably more than  what came before. In some respects Bethpage Black had the opposite issue ; less interest on the uphill greens than the teeshots or approaches. The National Golf Links stood out as a recent example that had this variety.

     It just seems to me that great architecture should have balance because the game is based on each shot not just a few.

I can't speak on National, and my memory of Bethpage is from before the renovation in the late 90's but my first instinct on Winged Foot and Hidden Creek is that you need to see them again. Some courses hit you the first time and you have a quick understanding of what's being presented and others take a bit more effort.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Those that disagreed with my Hidden Creek perspective said what you said. But I think if I miss the "subtle challenges" it is a problem with the architecture.  

So you're never wrong in detecting subtle challenges ?[/color]

Many times one can see where the best teeshot should have been after they are on the green.  I thought it made a small difference where you hit  it off the tee there , not enough to engage my intellect  at a high level. So, one often comes away from courses like this saying" Man , the greens were outstanding."

I should probably say " Is it enough that the green complexes are great? And do you usually see more challenging greens on courses with less challenge before that?"

How do you view that theory in the context of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th holes at Hidden Creek ?[/color]

I wonder if the relative reduction in interest on the greens in the uphill holes at BB were intentional. Was the designer concerned that the course would just be too tough?
Which begs a basic question.

Should greens that were intended to receive woods and long irons have pronounced contouring ?[/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,
    There is a good chance that I am wrong. I am wrong often. But I lay out where I am now so I can be enlightened.

[mike_malone]

 My choice of "each" was in opposition to an overweighting of just those shots around the green. I agree with what Dave said as well.

  Dave,
    My point is that the challenge at the green for HC is not sufficiently evident at the tee and out of balance with the challenge of the tee shot which appears to me to be almost "hit-it-anywhere". Now you need to know that my standard is "the best courses in America". It is my personal opinion that the "interest" needs to be maintained throughout the entire hole.  While I admit I could be missing some subtlety I think it is the designer's job to draw me into it. I'm just playing the course.


   JES II


    I have played HC a few times and come away with the same feeling each time. "This is a nice course , but I don't get the hype."

[Tom Huckaby]

DaveM makes an excellent point:

I dont think that the game should be based on "each shot" but rather the interplay between all the shots on a hole (and on a course.)  Breaking it down to "each shot" ignores the inttricacy of the chain of consequences.

Stop the presses.  Recall the trucks.  I completely agree.  Completely.  THIS is what golf is all about.

My corollary question is:  when people speak of "shot values", are they generally speaking in terms of this one-shot-at-a-time-in-a-vacuum approach that DaveM warns against?  

 
 
 

Shivas - no - at least I'm not - I don't really like the term that much, and only use it as required by GD.  And that definition most definitely refers to the collective, not any one shot at a time in a vaccuum approach.

[Tom_Doak]

George:

The original grading plan for Texas Tech is some of my best work.  It's as efficient as it can be in using surface drainage, minimizing pipe, making a flood control channel cross the course without being noticed, and getting as much interest as we could out of the earth that was moved.  It's really a piece of engineering, but only someone with Mike N's background would notice any of that.

When I did all of that, though, I tried not to plan the holes with any predictable pattern ... and with some of the guys who were shaping the edges of the course, Jim Urbina didn't even tell them which way the holes ran or from what angle people would be looking at them, so they wouldn't build anything that looked like a Hollywood set more than a landform.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: mayday_malone on November 28, 2005, 11:17:26 am
  My evaluations of both Winged Foot West and Hidden Creek were similar in one respect. I thought the greens were out of balance with the teeshots for the  par 4's and 5's. . . .
 
Response from David Moriarty:
 
"I think I generally follow what you are trying to say, but not as it applies to your examples.  Seems like you are evaluating based on a balance of difficulty between tee shots and green approaches, but failing to connect the dots.  
Take hidden creek for example.  Is it possible that the approaches seemed more "challenging" in large part because you failed to comprehend the subtle challenge off the tee?  In other words, had you been thinking about the tee shot as an important extension of the proper approach, then maybe you would have have found all the challenge you desire."

Moriarty:

My God, that's surprising---you actually said something quite brilliant there. Congratulations too, you also defined the basic concept of your home course's #12!  

Mayday:

Your opinion of NGLA is sure correct about green variety. Interestingly it doesn't have any small and complex greens at the end of any long par 4 but it sure does have some enormous greens that don't appear complex at the end of some shortish par 4s and a par 5 or two.

[TEPaul]

Shivas said:

"DaveM makes an excellent point:

"I dont think that the game should be based on "each shot" but rather the interplay between all the shots on a hole (and on a course.)  Breaking it down to "each shot" ignores the inttricacy of the chain of consequences."

So true. For some years some of us have been calling that kind of thing as "whole hole strategy" as opposed to "single shot increment" strategy!  

The trick is, as Behr intimated (Shackelford is a big fan of Behr), is to VERY OCCASIONALLY give the golfer a big open expanse with no visible penalty on the shot at hand and see if he can figure out if where he puts that shot actually DOES HAVE meaning as to what comes on the next shot, or MAYBE EVEN, the shot after that!  

This all comes from Behr's remark that architecturally it's a wonderful thing if design can actually get a thoughtful player to actively think of a bunker at the green-end of a par 5 when he's standing on the tee!  

That truely is the best of "whole hole strategy" golf architecture.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the info, Tom.

DaveM makes an excellent point:

I dont think that the game should be based on "each shot" but rather the interplay between all the shots on a hole (and on a course.)  Breaking it down to "each shot" ignores the inttricacy of the chain of consequences.

Stop the presses.  Recall the trucks.  I completely agree.  Completely.  THIS is what golf is all about.

My corollary question is:  when people speak of "shot values", are they generally speaking in terms of this one-shot-at-a-time-in-a-vacuum approach that DaveM warns against?

Most people do miss the chain, especially on the so-called subtle courses like HC and Rustic Canyon, that appear to lack challenge off the tee.

I think the current powers that be at Augusta don't get this chain at all. That was made clear when they instituted rough.

[JESII]

So true. For some years some of us have been calling that kind of thing as "whole hole strategy" as opposed to "single shot increment" strategy!  

The trick is, as Behr intimated (Shackelford is a big fan of Behr), is to VERY OCCASIONALLY give the golfer a big open expanse with no visible penalty on the shot at hand and see if he can figure out if where he puts that shot actually DOES HAVE meaning as to what comes on the next shot, or MAYBE EVEN, the shot after that!  

This all comes from Behr's remark that architecturally it's a wonderful thing if design can actually get a thoughtful player to actively think of a bunker at the green-end of a par 5 when he's standing on the tee!  

That truely is the best of "whole hole strategy" golf architecture.

And isn't that "holy whole hole" strategy a synonym for the concept of defending par at the green. If not a synonym, at the very least a chapter in the same book.

That has been my point, Mike Malone, the couple of times we've discussed WFW. The greens offer so much that they must be considered when on the tee. If the hazards and features in the fairway matched the greens (as you've seemed to wish) they just might overwhelm the greens in terms of usefullness. Fairways as undulating as HVCC (which are naturally occurring there and not at WFW) or as hazardous as somewhere like Old Memorial in Tampa would make a course with WFW's greens nearly unplayable.

[JESII]

   JES II


    I have played HC a few times and come away with the same feeling each time. "This is a nice course , but I don't get the hype."

Interesting, I've only been there once and thought it was very good. If we are being specific I would put it into the club {edit}"sporty" category of Pat Mucci as opposed to the championship category. That is not by any means meant as a knock, I often think it may be more difficult to build the charm while keeping out some of the difficulty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I think I'd place it in my "sporty" category which is one up from the club category, but, below the championship category.

[mike_malone]

 JES II

   I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have learned something valuable from it.

  I haven't reached a point where I agree yet , but I'm in the next township at least.

[mike_malone]

 I agree with Pat's category.

[JESII]

I'm sorry Patrick, I thought the club category was what you actually do refer to as the "sporty". "Sporty" is exactly what I had in mind. A senior moment at 31; should be a fun ride for the next 40+ years, anyone have an extra ankle bracelet you old guys wear that has your home address on it so you can be sent home when lost.

[mike_malone]

 My initial point has sort of been lost because some don't agree with my examples. But, maybe someone else can come with a better example of a highly rated course that lacks the "mind" challenge throughout the hole.

   It just seems to me that without wind or goofy manmade hazards it is difficult to get the challenge on flattish courses before you get to the greens.

[wsmorrison]

If you are saying that a flat course without wind and "goofy" (whatever that is) bunkers is not challenging (for whom, youm?) then I must challenge that notion that it is difficult to produce a great course.  Now wind certainly didn't hurt these courses but I've played the existing ones a number of times each in different conditions and they challenge the overwhelming majority of players to this day.

Kittansett
A good portion of Shinnecock Hills
Boca Raton South (NLE)
Boca Raton North (NLE)
The Old Course (not to the pros but for us mere mortals)
New Course
Eden Course
Westhampton
Yeamans Hall