[Peter Pallotta]

I’m wondering about how architects can use, and how golfers can experience, the unexpected. I played The Mines recently, and a number of times in the round I encountered something that I hadn’t expected and that took me by surprise; but in each case, that surprise ‘resolved itself’ a few moments or a few shots later, so that the unexpected suddenly felt like it was what I should’ve expected all along.  

Some examples: early in the round and off the tee, there was a large landform that was rough and fairly barren i.e. not with the cover/vegetation that I’d expected.  It surprised me, until I came off the green and made my way to the next tee, and suddenly I could see that exact same ‘look’ way off to the right, in even larger scale and seemingly naturally occurring; and now the landform/cover made sense (and was satisfying). Or a routing decision that, from the scorecard before the round, was surprising in that it brought three Par 3s all together in one spot, with two of them playing back to back; but when I got there, after working through a number of tree-lined holes to a wide open expanse of valley in which the Par 3s sat together, the routing suddenly make complete sense (and the change of scenery was very satisfying). There were others examples: green sizes and shapes/contours that I hadn’t seen/expected from the tee, but that made perfect sense to me after I’d putted out (or not).

I hadn’t thought about this experience/question in any conscious way until yesterday, when I posted something that brought it to mind.  Please bear with this little sidebar/analogy: in the early 1950s, some professors from a couple of jazz institutes tried to determine what made for a good jazz solo. They studied solos by the old masters, and went to shows by modern players to gauge audience reactions.  They concluded that a good jazz solo needed to be 50% predictable (so that the listener could feel comfortable in familiar territory, and believe that paying attention would be worth the effort) and 50% unexpected (so that the listener wouldn't get bored, and instead would start 'participating' more in the listening, expectedly waiting for the unexpected).  I’d put their conclusions this way: that a good jazz solo gave the audience what it wanted half the time, and half the time gave the audience what it didn't (until then) know it wanted.

Does that conclusion ring true to you from a golf design or playability perspective? How does this work in gca? How much of the unexpected is too much; or, how long can one wait before having the unexpected ‘resolve itself’? Someone described a good jazz solo as "the sound of surprise".  Is there an equivalent to that in golf architecture?

Thanks
Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, If what your describing is what I'm inferring, It's one way I have of distinguishing between some of these modern homerun hitters and some of the ODG's. DeVries certainly would fall into that modern category, as would Axland and Proctor, Doak, C&C etc.
 Tillie, Flynn, L&M, Egan & Mackenzie all used some form of blindness. What's interesting is how differently they use it. Bunker Hill boys often blind you to trouble off the tee, while often Mr. Doak blinds you to the ideal route. Nearer the green they both seem to do a switheroo, with Dan and Dave blinding some of their helpful features and Tom blinds you to the trouble side.
It's fascinating minutia one I'm hoping more of us geeks can quantify.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

I couldn't even quantify how I do that myself, so I seriously doubt if anyone else here could do it for my work.

Peter:

I smiled when I saw your percentages.  I do remember when I built High Pointe, the superintendent (who was from Crystal Downs and was used to controversy) and I used to talk about building a course that was so "on the edge" that 50% of people would like it and 50% would dislike it.  A few years later, when he came back to work for me again, we agreed that we probably ought to aim for somewhat over 50% liking it.  And of course by then I had also realized that most of my clients would like to like their own course.

That is not to say that I just pander to what people like, as so many modern architects do.  When you have terrain to deal with, there are times when the best solution at hand is to include a hole that's going to be controversial, and I look at those times as opportunities to teach the audience something about golf course design.  But, I don't go out of my way to find them on every other hole, and to be honest, I think that some of my younger fellow architects are trying too hard in that respect.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

I read that initial post and then read it again and reread it.

I hope you realize that perhaps much of what you were reacting to in what you found at the Mines and what you may even expect from other courses, perhaps ideally, really is a function of the first time golfer on a golf course.

The real deal may be those courses and holes that "hold the con" in various ways, if you know what i mean.

There is architecture out there which, for whatever reasons, just remains eternally enigmatic. One needs to ask both why that is and how does it happen? Golfers may play these holes many, many times and despite all that they never seem to quite know what to do or what to choose when they come upon those holes again.

Don't you think we could say that's also "Expecting the Unexpected"?

If that's true, obviously we probably need to discuss in detail why that is so.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, Since my first time around Apache Stronghold, I'm hip to your tricks. How else, on my initial visit, when standing on Ballyneal's 6th 420y teeing ground, I knew instinctively where to go? That's 95% blinded. Up nearer that green the right shoulder is just high enough to blind the player lulling them into attempting a shot, if slightly missed right, resulting in the much more difficult recovery. Maybe "it" can't, and, shouldn't be quantified, only experienced, felt and discussed? For instance. SFGC second. First time ever playing a Tillie. Center of fairway, back far enough so the leftside up the hill fwy bunker is blinding me to any terrain left of the green. I turn to Dan King and say "Let's see how good this Tillie really is". I take 3 wood str8 over the bunker with a nice little fade. Sure as shootin that ball ran right past the flag and ended up the hill, still on the green right.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I like those examples a lot you gave. They really do make this idea come alive of expecting the unexpected that may be some component of really cool architecture.

Your examples also make me think of some of the times and the shots where that's happened for me, even if I thought I missed a shot perhaps as a result of the fact that I really couldn't believe what I was being asked to do was right just because it seemed so counter intuitive.

Among some of those times and shots were ones where I came to see that there may be multiple ways of getting to the same spot on a green, and some times ways that were very far apart and diverse.

But I also like holes that are at the other end of the spectrum where you must do one thing and pretty well to have a chance of success.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents, thanks much for the thoughts/comments and examples.

Tom D:
Off your point about some younger architects, there's not a jazz great I know of who didn't say, about how he played in his younger days, something like "I talked a lot back then, but I wasn't SAYING anything".  Maybe the 'throw-everything-in-but-the-kitchen-sink' approach is an inevitable stage of the maturation process for any artist, in any art. (In terms of gca, though, maybe that wasn't always the case? The Macdonalds and MacKenzies back then don't seem to have gone through the same process. I wonder what's changed.)  At the Mines, it felt to me like Mike D was in fact 'saying' quite a lot.

Tom P:
Yes, I knew that this was an experience mostly based on my first-time playing; it was like the feeling of driving an unfamiliar and winding road and thinking myself lost, only to turn a corner onto an open expanse and realizing then that I'd been on the right track all along. I won't feel that same way again the next time I drive that road, though the sudden open expanse might still prove a very pleasant experience.

I think I do know what you mean by 'holding the con'; it's what the boys do to Doyle Lonnegan in "The Sting".  But unfortunately, that's as far as I can take it, and the rest is way out of my league. That is, not only have I never played/experienced a golf hole that remains enigmatic despite multiple plays, I can't even imagine what that hole might look like, or how it would work.

Creating a hole like that seems to me the "highest art" of a golf course architect, and the subtlest trick in the bag. It would be great to hear more.

Peter

[JESII]

I think I do know what you mean by 'holding the con'; it's what the boys do to Doyle Lonnegan in "The Sting".  But unfortunately, that's as far as I can take it, and the rest is way out of my league. That is, not only have I never played/experienced a golf hole that remains enigmatic despite multiple plays, I can't even imagine what that hole might look like, or how it would work.

Creating a hole like that seems to me the "highest art" of a golf course architect, and the subtlest trick in the bag. It would be great to hear more.

Peter

Holding the con is (has to be) 100% dependent on the green complex...with the possible exception of greatly different wind and firmness conditions. The wind and firmness conditions effect the angle of shots after the tee shot. It would be alot to ask of even the most perceptive golfer to understand how a hole might play when its effective playability is 100 yards shorter than the only time he has ever played it...

As to my statement about 'holding the con' at the green end...how else can the architect recommend which side of the hole you come in from? When you're asked to play the hole slightly differently than last time the information you might have learned last time is less valuable...this keeps the con in place a bit longer...

[Adam Clayman]

Tom Paul, As the architect of the big world theory I would expect nothing less and I too can appreciate the hole that is all right in front of you. But, Isn't the variety of these types of situations that create an ebb and flow to smart designs? That's where I see a major differences in some architects work and others. There are those who place every hole "right in front of you" and to me that's a pity because as with most things moderation is paramount.
One of the criticisms of Erin Hills is that it has blindness upon blindness upon blindness, resulting in a less than enjoyable experience when one shot is beyond the sight of any player.

Even Ken Dye's Pinon Hills had some trickery as one approached the climax of the round. Doing the ol' switcheroo on where he placed the fwy bunker by moving it to the less desirable side after playing a preponderence of the holes where challenging the player to flirt with the fwy bunkering to gain the advantage of the angle.

In a way these i.e.'s are the subtext of the individual architect.

[SL_Solow]

I always enjoy Peter's jazz analogies.  Putting aside the irrelevance of the analysis to "free jazz " solos, which might find their gca analogy in some of Desmond Muirhead's more extreme works, I think the fellows have put their finger on at least part of  the issue in their discussion of "holding the con".  The jazz soloist is free to create each time he plays a song as the best never repeat the same solo.  The challenge for the architect is that, notwithstanding changing weather conditions and variance in hole locations and tee positions, he only gets to create his "solo" once.

But continuing the jazz analogy, when a solo is recorded it becomes frozen so that the listener is only "surprised" once.  Yet there are certain solos that we listen to over and over notwithstanding the fact that we now know what is coming.  I suspect that the solos that stand the test of time do so not only because they are inventive but also because they have an inherent soundness that makes them pleasurable even when they are familiar.  It may be the instrumental tone, the technique, the harmony, the changes to the melodic structure or even rhythmic nuances which alone or in combination require repeat listening but there is something beyond novelty that brings us back.

So it is with golf courses that we want to play over and over.  When the newness wears off, something in the design, be it beauty, strategic soundness, challenge or a combination of these and other elements must be there or else we tire and turn elsewhere.  It is why novelties often create great initial interest but are soon left behind.  

A little unfocused but my best effort for now.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam, JES, SL - thanks much; very good posts all. I'm not going to even try to contribute any more of my thoughts, not right now any way.

SL - Coleman Hawkin's 1939 version of "Body and Soul" comes to mind, doesn't it? I've listened to it hundreds of times, learned to play it (badly) on the sax, can almost hum it all from memory, and yet my jaw still drops each time I hear it, and it's still a marvel every single time. A lot of talent and hard work...and then some magic, I guess.

If this is what you gents have experienced on the great courses/holes, I've got a lot to look forward to.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, As the architect of the big world theory I would expect nothing less and I too can appreciate the hole that is all right in front of you. But, Isn't the variety of these types of situations that create an ebb and flow to smart designs?"


Adam:

In my opinion, absolutely.

[TEPaul]

"Holding the con is (has to be) 100% dependent on the green complex..."

Sully:

I don't know about a 100% dependent on the green complex or green-end but I'd think it would have to be close to that.

I'll give you an example:

The 13th at GMGC has a bunker up near the right front of the green and it's just hard to appreciate how well it covers shots not hit long enough from the right side of the fairway. You'd be able to notice that and appreciate it rather quickly perhaps but there are many members who sure don't who've been playing the hole for years (not to mention we moved that bunker about five steps closer to the green and most aren't aware of that because it looks identical I guess that could both be considered "holding the con" on our part and on the part of the architecture too). This fall we are going to expand the right side into more fairway to try to sucker more players into driving the ball there because from the tee that area is on a direct line to the green. But that bunker has that approach area really well covered which is just not easy to see from the approach.

[JESII]

Tom,

I include that bunker as part of the green...to me, it's not just the contours, but the immediate surrounds as well that dictate play of a hole...

[Peter Pallotta]

"The 13th at GMGC has a bunker up near the right front of the green and it's just hard to appreciate how well it covers shots not hit long enough from the right side of the fairway. You'd be able to notice that and appreciate it rather quickly perhaps but there are many members who sure don't who've been playing the hole for years"

Tom
can you explain a little more or help me understand better  what's 'going on' there?

I know I've played much less golf and fewer courses than most here, but I haven't experienced anything like the confusion some members there seem to be experiencing. I've encountered a need for a shot I didn't possess, or I've discovered after playing the whole that I would've been better off playing it differently, or I've had to decide that, for me, the best option was to lay up and play for 5 etc. But I can't imagine, literally, how members can play the same hole day ater day and year after year and not 'figure it out'. What's going on there - a lack of talent (or at least 'shots in the bag')? A lack of imagination on their part? Or is it all that PLUS the fact the the hole is designed so well it simply 'holds the con'? What's at the 'heart' of this?

Thanks
Peter

   

[TEPaul]

"Tom
can you explain a little more or help me understand better  what's 'going on' there?"

Peter:

You'd probably need to see it to understand but that bunker is not at all prominent because it's a grassed down surround and it sort of blends into its general area from the approach which is somewhat uphill anyway. So many people from the right side hit a good shot but just not enough club. Frankly I wanted to see that face moved even a few more steps up the hill than the five we did and then it would really function along the lines of the "unexpected".  

The compensating factor however is we also restored about 5-7 steps of greenspace on the rear of the green called a "kickup".

In other words a golfer does have the choice of taking even another club and flying it into that kickup and having the ball filter back down toward the middle of the green but most never think of that.

It's a pretty cool Ross "second shot" hole because there are no fairway bunkers and everything pretty much revolves around that one right greenside bunker.  

Of course one could play more strategically by trying to get over on the left side of the fairway and get sort of out of the line of it but most don't think of that either because there's about zero architectural dictation on the fairway.

The natural tendency is to hit it down the right side right at the green. And with the soon to be expanded fairway on the right golfers will tend to go even farther right and really into the line of that right greenside bunker.

Gil Hanse loves this Ross hole because it's strategy is so subtle and hard to detect from the tee.

I just love holes where a good number of players pick clubs and actually hit the shot they think seems right and then wonder later what went wrong.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom
thanks - that did prove helpful. And, as a way to put it in a nutshell, so did this:

"Gil Hanse loves this Ross hole because it's strategy is so subtle and hard to detect from the tee."

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()