Who likes containment and visibility ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What modern day architect indicated recently that two of his basic design principles were containment and visibility ?

Did his supporting reasons make sense ?

If not, why are his courses so successful ?

If yes, why are his courses so successful ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Since you know him so well why don't you just get a headstart on us by asking Rees himself?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Oh Great Doyen, it is not Rees.

Next.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

OK, next question then. If Rees didn't feel two of his basic design principles were containment mounding and visibility I think a lot of people would be pretty surprised!

But maybe Rees didn't indicate that recently as far as you know.

So, I'll take another wild stab at it--Tom Fazio?

If you ever try to claim it was Coore & Crenshaw, though, believe me, I will NEVER let you come up for air again on Golfclubatlas!

[Jeff Brauer]

JN.  He said it in his new book.  Referring to containment, he says it is his signature feature.

[TEPaul]

RJ, TN, JN, etc!? If I, for instance, don't exactly agree that those two basic principles are important or even valid in architecture, Patrick, does that mean I'm somehow biased, in your opinion?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

First, you mis-guess Rees,
Then, you mis-guess Fazio,

Now, you're trying to hijack this thread.

Start your own thread.    

Focus on the questions posed in the original post.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

OK. I'll bail out of this one. I can recognize trick questions with the best of them. I must be a real a-stupid to have even thought to attempt to answer a Pat Mucci question on a self admittedly controversial thread!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
As Jack has said: "A good strategic course must provide visible hazards so the golfer can weigh his options". He believes "blind shots reward lucky guessing rather than thoughtful, strategic planning".
He has also been quoted as saying: "I like to give the golfer options, and design holes that reward the player who can hit the shot. I also try to avoid penal design - that is, design that severely punishes the golfer for wayward shots."

If it's all visible to the player and good shots are rewarded while wayward shots tend to stay on the course or come back towards the center then what's not to like? A course like that is fun to play for anyone, especially those who tend to hit it off-line and/or cannot easily decipher hidden strategies.

I have never been to Muirfield Village, is everything visible and contained there?     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I've never played Muirfield either.
Perhaps some who have can address your question.

You make a case for the higher handicap to enjoy his designs, but wouldn't those same features underwhelm the lower handicap ?

Does the offset distance of the containment mounds become a critical feature for assessing the value of the hole ?

At what offset distance do containment mounds become a non-feature ?

Does Nicklaus design holes with non-visible bunkers behind any greens ?

After playing and studying UK courses, why does he view visibility as such a high priority ?  Is it based on the play of the much higher handicap ?

[buckeye_bob]

Three greens on the front side are not visible, and two the back side ; however, the fairways are reasonably wide and the tees properly directed. This is the finest golf course I've ever played;there is not one weak hole!

[Paul_Turner]

One of Nicklaus's most famous courses in the UK, St Mellion has a massive amount of containment mounding, completely overdone to my eye:  Peter Allen makes some amusing, slightly sarcastic remarks in his great book "Play the Best Courses".

Another of his, The London Club looks highly contained too.  But not quite as bad as Rees's Oxfordshire, which is now finally being seen as an expensive mistake in the UK.

[buckeye_bob]

I've been a member of two Nicklaus courses,unfortunately not Muirfield Village,and have probably played (18) of his courses;however, none have the similarity to Muirfield V. regarding boldness,character,shotmaking,etc.Specifically,the greens have balanced bunkering(rt/lt side),the subtle false greenside blocking(#14/rt)whereas any shot not carried is doomed,yardages are to green front and are lazer perfect.  I am a Nicklaus fan but find puzzling his refusal to build other Muirfield Quality courses;his courses are aesthetically pleasing,interesting but not thrilling----Dye and Fazio challenge and create one masterpiece after another. I certainly struggle with the question ----Who trully designed Muirfield V?D.Muirhead?      

[JWL>]

Buckeye Bob

You simply haven't played enough Nicklaus designed golf courses.  BTW, Muirhead wouldn't even recognize MV today.

[JWL>]

Paul

Have you actually played St. Mellion?  Could you define "massive" mounding.   Are you aware that the course was almost predominantly built on extremely difficult sloped  terrain?  How would your "eye" have constructed the course?
Are you aware that there was an existing course adjacent that the owners wanted to screen from the new course?  Are you aware of the soil conditions encountered and how that might have impacted the containment?  I am only suggesting by raising these questions, that there is a lot more that goes into building a course to be playable than just making it pleasing to your "eye".  I haven't read the comments in the book you identified, but apparently they were not too complimentary.  Must not have met the author's "eye".

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim,
Your right, Desmond wouldn't recognize MV today because he is dead.

I have never been to Muirfield Village, but from images in print and on TV, it certainly seems to have a lot of features that Desmond strived for in his designs; such as the long bold lines and curves of the water hazards; certain teeing grounds on some of the holes which emphazise his thoughts on enabling a hole to play from various yardages--with each teeing ground to provide a different challenge for the paticular hole; the routing of this course and the magnificent placing of the houses in relation to hiding them as much as possible, etc.

Knowing that JND has changed the playing features of a lot of the golf holes, why not give credit where credit is due--allow this seemingly GREAT golf course be a Desmond Muirhead/Jack Nicklaus co-design? (this being since so much of the original course was Desmond's and so much of the current course is Jack's)

[redanman]

The key here was the visibility thing.  

Jack has terrible ability to pick up the ball in the air, I am told and in my experience, people like that really like to see as much as they can.  He also stated the visibility thing in his book that Maxfli gave out with RM Maxflis about 5 years ago.(Author ?Bowden, Ken)

Jack has built more downhill holes or at least a greater percentage of them than anyone else in the history of architecture.  HE managed to build only 6 uphill holes on Castle Pines GC, and  only 4 on Castle Pines CC- evidence for his penchant for downhill ergo visible holes.

I have tried not to hold downhill holes against him, but they do get to be tiresome playing his courses.  I think his design teams are getting a bit better, though.
 
As for Patrick's questions?  I think most golfers (Independent of abilit) like holes that are "Laid out in front of them".  Most of his courses aren't terribly cohesive or inspiring to me, but servicable, modern golf courses that tend to be "fair"-another key to success these days.

p.s.  The photography in his new book is quite attractive.

[JWL>]

TN

I was not part of the team that designed and constructed the original MVGC.  You may have been and know things that I am unaware of.  But I have had extended conversations about the original and the changes with JWN and Bob Cupp, his associate for many years.
If you knew how JWL worked in those days, you would realize that JWN made ALL the decisions, very hands-on, especially on that course.  Not taking anything away from Mr. Muirhead's input, but I was told that he was hired  because of his land planning/development expertise, and most of his input
in the project was related to that area.
My comment about him not recognizing it, is due to JWN's changes throughout the years.  I am sure that the designer, JWN, has made enough changes that it would fall into the "renovated" category.  I am sure also, that the designer feels like the course is better today that it ever has been.  I agree with him.

[Paul_Turner]

JWL

I have played St Mellion.  So of course I know the nature of the terrain, it's severe and the soil is heavy.  Some of the containment may have been necessary on some holes to stop a ball rolling off into oblivion, but Nicklaus took this to extremes rather than keeping it to a minimum.  The result is a course that looks mostly artificial and out of touch with its environment... it doesn't suit my eye.


Searched for images to give an impression:



Does anyone think that the photo doesn't look massively shaped?  It's like that on the majority of holes.  And I'm not buying the argument that a more natural course couldn't have built, even given the constraints from the client.  And a man of Nicklaus's stature surely could have had a huge influence on the client, particularly as this was his first UK project.

JWL

Have you played the course?  Do you like it?

[Joe Hancock]

This is going to "out" me as one who likes the visibity. I agree with Jack in that often "blind shots reward lucky guessing rather than thoughtful, strategic planning". I haven't figured my opinion out exactly, but I especially feel this way concerning hazards. A blind approach shot is'nt as troublesome to me as blind hazards. I like the fact that if I know where the trouble is, and I still get into it, it's either a bad decision or bad execution. For me, this is more difficult for me to play through than getting into the hidden hazards. I have to accept the blame for the score on the card rather than blame it on lack of knowing the course.

Joe

[JWL>]

Paul Turner

Yes I have played St. Mellion, and yes I do like.  I appreciate that the course was constructed on a very severe site.  Very steep side slope, where the course was forced to traverse the slope to return to the existing clubhouse.
The soil condition was not just heavy, but solid rock boulders.
The hole shown in the picture is the 2nd green.  It was built in conjunction with the 6th green which cannot be seen because of the support behinde the green.  There is also a cart path in between greens that serves both holes and crosses a bridge to the left of the photo over a deep ravine.
The shaping in the background is on the left side of the 6th hole.  It is not containment mounding, of which this thread began.  I thought that is what you didn't like.  It appears that you didn't like the shaping.  I can understand if you don't.  But let me say that the cut from the holes was moved up the hillsides and shaped over buried boulders.  I think that had a major impact on what you would call overdone shaping.
There is some containment mounding that I didn't particular agree with but I know it was done to separate the new course from the existing course at the time.  I was not fond of the separation mounding around the 9th hole and to the right of 18th  fairway and green.  
The support mounding on the downside of holes 14, 15, 16 were necessary to keep the ball on the fairway level.   That is the totality of containment mounding on the course.  The high side of many holes was shaped with excess soil and boulders.  The shadowing is quite nice, IMHO.
Very difficult site and project due to site conditions, contractor (the owner) and budget constraints.

[Paul_Turner]

I remember a fair amount of containment mounding around the greens too e.g. the 12th.

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
As Jack has said: "A good strategic course must provide visible hazards so the golfer can weigh his options". He believes "blind shots reward lucky guessing rather than thoughtful, strategic planning".

Yet another attempt to weed luck out of golf and turn it into more of a test than a game.  Keep trying, fellas, but you'll never do it!

[JWL>]

PT
You might be referring to the 13th green.  The 12th green was actually constructed at the lowest point on the site, actually in a hole.  To create the fairway, the fairway you played was raised approximately 35 feet.  The stream was in the bottom of a deep ravine with steep sideslopes on both sides.  The fairway was raised and the stream raised and routed down the right side and across in front of the green.  The entire green site was filled along with the fairway.  It was a difficult area to get fill into, and I can assure you that zero extra fill was brought in to created containment.  Did you like the hole.  I thought it turned out to be quite attractive and  interesting.  I haven't had a conversation about St Mellion in many years.  I am enjoying talking about it with someone that has played it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Someone above asked why JN hasn't built more courses like MV. It's been over 20 years, correct?

JWL- How can anyone downplay the role DM had at MV?

If I were a teacher and and I suspected JN of plagarism @ MV. You couldn't prove otherwise by his designs over the last 20yrs., could you? Sure, Now he's sort of getting it, but who got it then, and what happened? If it wasn't the fallingout with DM, where have all these great designs been hiding?