Do some architects try too hard to do something special?

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

I think many of the excess bunkers and excess water features are a function of aesthetics, not so much for their architectural merit. I don't disagree in the overuse, I just think many developers understand what John Q. Public prefers to spend his golfing dollars on.

On a similar and related note, irrigation has become the crutch of us supers, but we still overuse it due to outside pressures...at least that's our excuse when we try to explain why we water so much......

And, that is my point...we look at a course and say it is over shaped, over bunkered and over watered (both kinds), etc. but rarely are we in a position to understand what the driving forces are behind those "abuses".

Another factor, even though it shouldn't be......if someone ponies up a hefty fee to have a course designed....is he or she going to accept several bunkerless holes because "the land is that good"? Of course, it has happened, but it is the exception, not the rule. Even wealthy developers have to see what they are getting for their money.

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

Regarding water, I always remember years ago playing the TPC at Eagle Trace.  They gave me a golf cart and I think I would have been just as well off to use a boat to get around.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark, I think I understand both what you're asking and some of the answers, but:

to use an analogy, a young trumpeter can "try too hard" to play like Dizzy Gillespie OR Chet Baker. In other words, the attempts at both extravagance AND minimalism can be (or can appear to be) forced by those not yet ready for the attempt.

But why are they not yet ready? That’s what I like about the jazz analogy: many of today’s young players are so well trained that it is rarely a 'lack of technique' that makes their attempts to copy the greats seem forced; they can certainly play all the right notes, and in the right style.

The difference, it seems to me, is something much less obvious, or at least much more subtle: it's that they're lacking that almost indefinable quality (and sound) called "authority".

How do you get that “authority” in jazz or gca? Ah, that’s the question. But I have come to believe this: that you’ll NEVER get it if you haven’t experienced the stage where you “tried too hard”.

Peter
edit: I understand that my post wasn't in keeping with the real meat of this thread, and with posts by those who actually KNOW. I just meant to suggest that there is another way to look at the question....and meant to defend a little those who "try too hard". You know, that old saying about our grasp exceeding our reach....

[Scott Witter]

Related story: My last course was built on a relatively flat and challenged site from a drainage standpoint with little character from which to generate even decent holes.  The course needed to be  manufactured and I moved about 200K cubic yards to do so, now, I did not admittedly get it all 'just right' in some areas and if I had to do it over I would certainly have taken a different approach, but for the most part the play is interesting, fun, challenging and the look not too forced.  Last year another course located just 4 miles away was built upon very nice rolling land with a lot of interesting natural character and one could have found at least 13 to 14 natural holes.  However, those in charge designing felt it was valuable to move...get this 1.4 million CY.

The course has nothing but giant boobs lining almost every hole, containment everywhere, average 12,000 SF putting surfaces and 60 circular or oval shaped 1.5 ft deep bunkers of which may be 7 are partially interesting and somewhat strategically located.  Guess what folks, we would probably rather go to a putt putt course, but the unsofisticated blue collar golf market loves it, I mean they really love it and I told my client long before they were done that they would,    because they don't know any better and compared to the weak and horrible golf they have had for the past 35 years, they think they were transported to the Carolinas, or some damn resort.

The course was WAY overdone, forced on the land in every way imaginable with way too much paint on the canvas for the sake of someones understanding of an image.  But hey, they are ringing the cash register and how can you knock that

[Mike_Young]

Nothing wrong with trying hard too do something special......it just doesn't need to be loud......

[paul cowley]

....now you guys are really getting me down....Scott, I feel your pain.
...screw it, I'm not going to work tomorrow.

Maybe I'll just watch the fireworks instead.

God Bless the USA!

[Tom_Doak]

By the way, Mark, you never did say where you played where the greens were so "over the top".  I suppose, for many people's tastes, it could have been the second 18 at Stonewall.

Then again, the same description could apply to Oakmont or Augusta National, for people who don't like severe greens.  

[TEPaul]

It may sound like a generalization, but in my opinion, the most sublime holes are ones that somehow tend to have their theme (and/or strategies) revolve around one or just two things, whatever that may be---eg a topopgraphical feature (hopefully natural) a green shape, size or angle, a central bunker somewhere etc. One of the most useable and best when it can be done well is the "turn" or "bend" hole or the offset (to the line of play) green.

I recognize this kind of thing could and probably would be seen as architecturally mundane and underdone by some, perhaps most, but over time if done well this kind of thing comes to the fore and makes a hole enduring, in my opinion.

What are some good examples of the above?

Myopia's #1---eg a blind uphill/sidehill starting hole of under 300 yards with a green that totally throws strategy all the way back to the tee bigtime. In a real way being 75 short and left of it is a whole lot better than being within 10 yards of it and above and to the right of it.

Rustic Canyon's #12---eg big wide unencumbered fairway with green shape and contours driving tee placement to chip or putt strategies.

Pacific Dunes #6----eg open fairway left directly inline with a green set at a precarious and raised shallow diagonal from that natural tee shot direction.

Maidstone's #17---eg a green placed far to the left of the somewhat deceptive proper line of drive. It makes for tee shot concentration, particularly for long players very unsettling.

GMGC's #8----eg a short dogleg left par 4 whose shallow and raised and bunkered green design makes shots more difficult the closer you get to it.

Pine Valley's #8 and #12----eg with fairway width and green placement/angling that make tee shot option to approach options a pretty stark choice of approach involving "shallow and wide" vs "long and narrow".

Paul:

Are we designing enough 3% plus at Newark in combination with 2% and such?

[paul cowley]

Tom....75% of #1 as it is now probably has slopes in the 2.5 to 3.5% range....it needs to be toned down a bit IMO.

Lets look at it Tues.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Doak,
On greens, contour for the sake of contour can be over done.  Does one need to have a buried elephant or three foot shelves on every green?  Even at Oakmont (I love those greens) there is variety and subtlety.  

When you start looking for the clown's mouth or a windmill, you know things are beginning to get a little goofy.  

Maybe I should have phased the title of this post differently - Can golf courses be "over designed"?  My feeling is absolutely!
Mark

[Doug Siebert]

My take is that some architects are bold visually (water and sand, scenery, landscaping, etc.) and conservative when it comes to the non visual playability elements like green contours, depth of bunkers, length of holes, etc.

Those who are conservative visually, and I'd include C&C, Doak, and Hanse as good examples of what I'm defining my phrase here, can be bold in other ways that don't necessarily make for great "signature hole" pictures on the course web site (unless you are building a course in Hawaii or NZ where even the local landfills probably look spectacular in photos )

I can't say that its completely wrong to concentrate on the visual elements and let the playability and fun aspects take a back seat, after all as we keep lamenting, too many golfers think a course is in good shape if its green, and not if its brown, is better if the fairways are tree lined rather than treeless, and are improved by flowerbeds, fountains in the water hazards and top dollar clubhouses.  They are not "championship" if they aren't par 72, or have par 4s under 300 yards or par 5s under 500 yards from the tees they play, or have holes without bunkers.  They aren't challenging if the slope is less than 130, and the greens are too slow if they don't stimp at 11.5 or more, or at least tell the golfers they do.

[wsmorrison]

Which architects today and in the past practice(d) subtle designs and what are some examples?

As for Flynn, his routings were bold; especially daring over dynamic pieces of ground.  However, his greens tended to be subtle interplays of slopes and fall-offs.  His practice to tie architectural features into the natural surroundings tended to camouflage risk.

[Forrest Richardson]

At one of my early courses I designed some wacy greens that would fit Mark's definition of "over designed". Here is one called "X Marks the Spot"



What is interesting about this course are the comments. People nearly always comment on how much fun they found the greens. I used to think the collection of putting surfaces — which was admittedly a design solution to overcome a drab site — was "overdone". However, the comments have me thinking otherwise...maybe it was O.K. (in this instance) to inflict some wacky ideas.

[paul cowley]

Yes......run [with your ideas],Forrest, run [with your ideas].

Nothing wrong with fun either.

I strongly feel that if we don't start building in some fun and ease of play, and shorten time to play, and pay less for all the above......golf will tube itself sometime in the next two generations [ Y and Z I guess] and go the way of tennis or worse.....because of a lack of attention span and need for more immediate gratification.....and laziness.

But maybe we shouldn't worry, because by then we will have golf robots that can go out and play for you while you command them from the comforts of your home.....which will be just one of a line of robotics that will allow for vicarious pleasures through their actions.

w ::)w.....one can hardly wait.

[Forrest Richardson]

I think the premise of Mark's question is that he feels this is so. Regardless, it remains a question, probably best discussed by trying to discern where the line is crossed.

Rarely, I feel, is the line crossed. Desmond Muirhead had loads of fun crossing lines — but I applaud his remarkable and thought provoking design ideas. Pete Dye did exactly what Mark may be suggesting at The Golf Club (Ohio). There is no hole at The Golf Club that lies still and waits for a smile, smirk or eyebrow to raise.

But — It this "trying too hard", or is it simply a matter of having fun designing the playing board of a game?[/i]

I say it is having fun.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
For the record, I prefer to see chances taken with design.  However, there is or at least there can be a difference between (interesting, unique and quirky) vs. downright goofy.  Crossing the line is fine on a few holes, but when the architect crosses the line (or at least tries to) on every hole, it can be over the top and in my opinion over-designed.  The fun factor dies off real fast.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Is Pete Dye's The Golf Club "goofy"?  (WARNING: EVERY HOLE IS A COMPLETE CHANGE WITH "OVER THE TOP" CHANCES TAKEN AT FAIRWAYS, HAZARDS & GREENS.)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I think the answer is yes, of course.  I think young gca's try to hard on their first projects (in the context of being in an office) and first time on their own gca's always want to try something new.  Then, even with a bit more experience, the first time a gca gets to work on "a big stage" they often try to outdo themselves, or at least try to outdo the other big name gca's that have worked on the big stage.  

I think the poor design, if it occurs, actually comes from being self conscious about being in a new position.  Its almost like golfers choking in their first position to win a major, or teams choking in the playoffs.

Young gca's in my office getting their first taste of design are often guilty of trying to put every design idea in the book into one course, and sometimes, even into one hole!

It doesn't happen every time, but it does happen sometimes.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
I hear you but great designs seem to balance it all out.  I'm sure even you have played a course that you felt was over designed.

Jeff,
I think you sum up what I am trying to say quite well.  Sometimes architects are "guilty of trying to put every design idea in the book into one course, and sometimes, even into one hole"!

As I said before, sometimes less is more.

[Forrest Richardson]

Actually, of all the golf I have played I may have felt a course was approaching the "over the top" mark, but I would prefer that (any day) to the massive list of lame, uninteresting, bland and sameness designs that plaque the world of golf.

I can easily excuse the designer, as well as critique him or her, for going too far. But my penalty for creating bunker after bunker that looks the same, sameness after sameness, boring golf hole after boring golf hole — well, that calls for GCA Jail time!  

This is not to say that over designing (trying too hard) is acceptable. But, it shows drive and ambition. That may be worse than restraint with a dose of creativity — but it is likely better than the lameness I detest.

[Kalen Braley]

Forrest and Paul

I agree with your comments here.  Playing quirky, intresting holes really gets my jucies flowing.  Sure there is the risk of running it over the top, but if archies included only a few of these types of holes, it would add great interest.

Two holes come to mind.  The 14th at Redlands Mesa with its blind approach and green surronded by massive boulders.  Its unconventional and a blast to play.



As well the 16th at Pacific Dunes with its rumpled fairway and large swales that are blind off the tee.  While my first reaction was a bit stand-off-ish, I realized it was only due to my inability to play it correctly.   Its really like nothing else I've seen and every picture I've seen of it doesn't do it justice.

In my book, quirk, quirk, and more quirk is a good thing.  But for those of you who work with the owners, do you find they are resistant to these type of holes, or is it more of a matter of archies not wanting to roll the dice??