[George Pazin]

And if so, what are they?

And, perhaps most interestingly, are they limiting?

I've been reading the many interesting threads started by Peter Pallota lately, as well as his contributions on other threads, particularly the one where someone asked if a course could be great if no one thought so (I apologize for not knowing off the top of my head who started the thread - I'll try to find it and link to it).

And Peter has asked, many times, if these principles exist. I am reasonably certain he thinks so.

I think the rest of the site tends to resist. The reason, I believe, is that it smacks of formulas, standard practices, etc. It's much more gratifying to the ego to say that in an art such as gca, there are no established principles, but that one can recognize greatness when he sees it.

So do established principles exist? Mackenzie's 13 rules, perhaps? (Any addendums or repudiations, if you accept those?)

And, maybe most interestingly, if guiding principles exist, do they limit the architect? Or do they free him up to do his best within the guidelines?

Just some food for thought. What do you think?

[Sean_A]

I think guiding principles exist at least in some sort of elastic form.  An archie has to have some idea of what is good and what is not so good.  I think where it may get interesting is when an archie is willing to bend/break some of his guiding principles for whatever reason.  I wonder how often archies are pleased with the outcome when they deviate from their normalish patterns.  

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

That darn Pallota....causing trouble, making us think and stuff.....

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

I think Sean has it about right.  While fashionable to say "there are no rules" there really are, but they are elastic.  They are elastic both in what the gca may vary on, and how many times he will vary them per course.

At least, thats my take on it.  I like to start with my rules (and seriously, how could anyone who has designed a few courses or more not sort of developed a mental checklist of things that worked well or not?) and limit the number of times they are broken to keep the course from just being silly.  

I do understand the generalized fear that having too many rules stifles creative design, but it doesn't have to. It can just serve as a reminder and a starting point, which I think is better than starting with a blank slate of play concepts.  It's very possible to start with a checklist of play design ideas and adapt them very specifically by looking at each site as a blank slate that will suggest a style to those ideas.

I think the rules are pretty familiar and for more you could go to my version on Cybergolf - just read my ten commandments.  But really, its the stuff like no blind shots, etc. that some here would say are the cause of boring design.  In truth, those basic ideals do work, and are the back bone of nearly every good course, even if the exceptions to the rule that work are the things that stick in most peoples minds.

For example, would a blind shot really be that thrilling 11 times in a row?  A really tiny reverse slope green?

[Peter Pallotta]

George -
Thanks. I'm keep asking about it (and writing about it) because I'm trying to understand how great golf architecture CAN'T be based on fundamental principles. It's not that I'm sure that I'm right; it's that I literally don't understand how the opposite could be true, especially in the context of our discussions here about great golf courses.

I can hear Tom Huckaby saying right now: "that's why I judge golf COURSES and not golf ARCHITECTURE." But someone BUILT those courses, and they built them based on principles which they adapted to the existing landforms (or instead shaped the landforms until they could be MADE to manifest those principles).  

I'm not talking/asking about RULES; those I think are BASED on fundamental principles. Any artist worthy of the name in any art form has learned and understood the principles first, and that's why he can use -- or BREAK -- the rules as he sees fit, and to great affect. (In other words, OF COURSE the rules are elastic, they're just rules; it's the existence of fundamental principles that ALLOWS for that elasticity).

And I'm not even asking/talking about individual golf holes, as great as they may be; in other words, I'm not asking about a great Redan Hole, I'm asking about what fundamental principles underpin the CONCEPT of the Redan.

George, what I'm asking is: what do we mean by great? (We sure use the word a lot around here, about golf holes and golf courses and golf architects.) What does a golf course getting a "10" actually MEAN? Are we prepared to say that is simply a subjective opinion, with all that this implies? If not, we're left with the objective, no? And what is it in a golf course that exists and can be judged OBJECTIVELY if not architectural principles?

Here's a quote from an article written soon after Macdonald finished NGLA:

“Here we have eighteen holes which constitute perfection, or as near thereto as it is possible to attain in any single course. A great deal of credit is due to Mr. Macdonald for providing such a classical links, which will ever remain a monument unto himself, and much good will be done to the game as a whole in the way of furnishing such a magnificent object lesson of what a first-class course should be…”

What did Macdonald see in the holes at St. Andrews, Prestwick, North Berwick, and Leven, that long before his arrival had already been recognized by men devoted to the game of golf as great golf holes? In what way could Macdonald’s aggregation of 18 such holes serve as a magnificent “object lesson”? Why have golf architects since then made pilgrimages to the UK to study these same hole? What are they studying, and what are their trained and studious eyes actually SEEING there in the ground (if not fundamental principles at work, that is)?

Like I say, George, I’m trying to understand those principles; and, maybe just because it’s the way my mind works, I simply can’t understand how great work is done and great works produced WITHOUT being based on enduring and fundamental (I’d almost say eternal) principles, whether consciously or intuitively.

Peter
edit: I swear, this looked a lot shorter when I was writing it.

[Mark_Fine]

Of course there are "rules" and principles of good design that one tries to follow.  However, what most people (maybe not so much on this site) don't understand are all the limitations, restrictions, constraints,...that one has to deal with when designing or redesigning a golf course.  Until you've gotten involved with a few it is hard to comprehend all that an architect has to deal with.  Just as an example, my one project underway right now has wetlands limitations, housing setback issues, irrigation concerns (the need to get rid of effluent water), a new clubhouse location factor, orientation of a new practice range/short game area/golf school, historical property significance, access road requirements, new maintenance building location,...and the list goes on.  Did I mention anything about the golf architecture that has to get designed while dealing with all of this

It's not always like most people think, go find the best 9 or 18 holes on a virgin piece of property utilizing your sheet of great design principles and have at it  

[TEPaul]

George:

When one tries to answer a question like yours I think it's probably important to break both the question and the answers down into two very distinct parts:

1. Principles in architecture that pertain merely to the playing of the game.

2. Principles in architecture that pertain to architectural land use and architectural construction that is enduring.

The thirteen points of Mackenzie and the nine points of Macdonald pretty much pertain to the first part and those things will probably always be somewhat subjective, elastic and prone to changing opinions.

Not many architects ever talked that much about the principles pertaining to the second part although some such as Ross, Thomas, Hunter and certainly Behr did.

Those areas mostly pertained to such things as drainage.

But the one who talked most, as usual, about principles pertaining to the second part was Behr. He even wrote a couple of articles pertaining to nothing but the principles of the second part.

In those articles he said such things as:

"The paint artist's medium is paint and he is master over his medium. But the golf architect's medium is the earth and he can never be the master over it, only the forces of Nature are master over it."

Obviously, Behr was talking about those physical principles that pertained to the destructive capacity of the natural forces on the earth of wind and water. Those principles are not elastic, or subject or prone to changing opinions (although obviously man-made preventive mechanisms can change and improve).

Behr even went further and identified the convex angle as one that is stronger and more enduring than the concave. Behr felt that recognizing such things would lead to what he referred to as "permanent" architecture----architecture that both looked natural and was physically enduring against the basic forces of Nature.

So, if anyone talks about "principles" in golf architecture who can deny there really are two very distinct types of "principles" in golf course architecture, and that any good golf architect will have to be completely aware of both?

[BCrosby]

Good topic. Save me a seat at this table. I've got to do some work and will post later.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

Don't you know that under the Rules of GCA.com, if you want to reserve a seat at the table you have to leave enough Intellectual Property behind to cover the blinds and double blinds?

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

The only guidelines are that there are no guidelines, and the Justice Potter Stewart rule of "I know it when I see it" always appiles.

[Peter Pallotta]

George - another simpler way to ask my questions:

What do the following great courses have in common: St. Andrews, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Cypress Point, Royal County Down, Sand Hills, NGLA, and Royal Melbourne?  

Built in different times by different architects on different sites, what is it that ties them together in their greatness? What underlying foundations/principles do they share?

Peter

Rich - The thing is, different people at different times and places all seemed to "know it when they saw it" about the SAME courses. Was that just a strange and happy coincidence? What is it that they (and you) are seeing?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,


"1. Principles in architecture that pertain merely to the playing of the game.'

MERELY playing the game?  Your wording shows where you are at architecturally speaking.  In fact, I think playing the game is the number one goal of golf architecture, not preserving the land, etc, which is ONLY done when and if it enhances the play.

Ditto for point two, which is understanding and respecting Mother Nature, because it will win out every time.  As high fallootin as that sounds, it really does boil down to drainage 90% of the time, as you note.  And, it is important, as you note, and not to be taken for granted.

It is interesting to revisit the old writings.  Most spend a bit of time on design principles, and then more on practical aspects, as if they are trying to show amateurs how to do it, when in reality, these were promotional brochures, intended to make is sound just complicated enough that amateurs wouldn't try it, at least not without consulting a gca.

[John Kirk]

What do the following great courses have in common: St. Andrews, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Cypress Point, Royal County Down, Sand Hills, NGLA, and Royal Melbourne?  

Peter

They are all built on sand, or sandy soil.  I'd rather have an architect explain why this is essential, but I believe the good drainage makes for greater shaping flexibility.

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,


"1. Principles in architecture that pertain merely to the playing of the game.'

MERELY playing the game?  Your wording shows where you are at architecturally speaking.  In fact, I think playing the game is the number one goal of golf architecture, not preserving the land, etc, which is ONLY done when and if it enhances the play."


Jeff:

Then just take out the word "merely". Using it doesn't show where I'm coming from architecturally speaking because I'm not trying to architecturally minimize the importance of the playing of the game. Obviously, if it weren't for the playing of the game no golf courses or golf archtiecture would've ever been done.

[Ted Kramer]

Width from tee to green seems like a reasonably well established guideline/principle for superior GCA.

on concave vs. convex . . .
A concave slope will lead to more similarity in landing/ending points for a golf ball, in other words balls played into a concave slope will tend collect in a defined area. A convex angle or slope will cause balls to bounce, roll and come rest in a much more random pattern.  I think most would agree that random is more interesting than defined . . .

-Ted

[Adrian_Stiff]

I agree there are basic rules from where you cant stray too far. Breaking the rules can literally make or break the course.

[George Pazin]

What do the following great courses have in common: St. Andrews, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Cypress Point, Royal County Down, Sand Hills, NGLA, and Royal Melbourne?  

Peter

They are all built on sand, or sandy soil.  I'd rather have an architect explain why this is essential, but I believe the good drainage makes for greater shaping flexibility.

Of course, I think you could throw Merion and Oakmont in with this company, and neither is built on sand or sandy soil.

It surely helps, however!

Ted, you may or may not be aware of it, but Mike Cirba developed a theory a few years ago that all of the world's great courses are convex. I think that observation is right up there with John Kirk's Time Developing Shots theory as two of the most interesting observations on this site.

[Ted Kramer]

What do the following great courses have in common: St. Andrews, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Cypress Point, Royal County Down, Sand Hills, NGLA, and Royal Melbourne?  

Peter

They are all built on sand, or sandy soil.  I'd rather have an architect explain why this is essential, but I believe the good drainage makes for greater shaping flexibility.

Of course, I think you could throw Merion and Oakmont in with this company, and neither is built on sand or sandy soil.

It surely helps, however!

Ted, you may or may not be aware of it, but Mike Cirba developed a theory a few years ago that all of the world's great courses are convex. I think that observation is right up there with John Kirk's Time Developing Shots theory as two of the most interesting observations on this site.

I'm aware of both points and agree with you 100% in that they are 2 of the most insightful and interesting observations made on this site.

-Ted

[Peter Pallotta]

George/Ted - agreed that those are wonderful observations. And I should've added Oakmont and Merion etc to my list, as I think it would've made for a broader question; I'd just grabbed a bunch of Top 10s at random.

FWIW, the following is from a 1926 article by CV Piper, then Chair of the USGA Green Committee. It’s part of a long and well-written article that doesn’t really support the idea of fundamental principles, i.e. it's more about the guidelines/rules of good architecture from the perspective of the time.  But I liked the opening paragraphs so much I thought I’d post them:

"Various attempts have been made to diagram or to describe the characteristics that should make up an "ideal" golf course or, rather, one that is not open to just criticism.  Naturally these efforts have not given consistent results, varying, as they do, with the human element which, curiously enough, even the expert can not banish.

It may well be contended that an "ideal" golf course is an illusion, which can never be reached. Certainly the styles of golf course architecture have changed greatly from time to time, and are still in process of evolution. Nevertheless there is considerable agreement, in the opinions of those who give the subject attention, as to some of the characteristics a course should possess to be considered worthy of high merit.

An "ideal" golf course is not the same as a "finished" golf
course, and perhaps never will be. A finished golf course, that is, one on which there is not a continuing series of improvements, will sooner or later become a relic.  Much betterment will for a long time be necessary before any high "ideal" can be closely approximated. Perhaps an acceptable definition of an "ideal" golf course is that it be 'a severe test for the expert, but perfectly fair to the mediocre player, and withal a thing of landscape art where none of the features jar one's sense of the beautiful.'"

Peter

[TEPaul]

"on concave vs. convex . . .
A concave slope will lead to more similarity in landing/ending points for a golf ball, in other words balls played into a concave slope will tend collect in a defined area. A convex angle or slope will cause balls to bounce, roll and come rest in a much more random pattern."

Ted:

You're not kidding and in that basic fact may lie perhaps one of the most interesting dynamics imaginable between what suits the golfer and his play and what suits golf course architecture to be both strong and better able to withstand the basic forces of Nature.

Within that fact may lie the most fundamental "two way stretch" there is or ever could be between the game of golf and the physical endurance of golf course architecture.

Things would be so much easier if it were the other way around but it's not and it never will be!!  

 

[Michael Dugger]

I will try....

1. The golf course will always be limited in greatness by the natural splendor of the parcel of land it rests upon.  Like it or not, the game of golf shares a unique relationship with nature.  Now, of course, what one considers great natural splendor and what another considers such is a subjective judgement call.  Some may like playing their golf amidst the skyscrapers of New York City, and consider that setting "spectacular."  Some do not agree that anything less than pure linksland is most preferred, since this is where it was all started.  

However, despite all the differing opinions, there does seem to be a general consensus of what a great piece of land is.

But it's like that chief justice said about pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

2. No great golf course is without firm turf.  Also, like John Kirk said, well draining turf allows for coutours we may not see in a spongy bentgrass turf farm.  Some features MUST be able to surface drain because you can't install a catch basin in every single depression/birdbath on the golf course.  It's just no feesible.  There would be literally hundreds of them.

Firm golfing turf opens up entirely unique and different ways of playing the game of golf.  Playing golf like a game of darts is one dimensional and boring.  It is an injustice to the potential of golf.  

3. No great golf course is without true putting surfaces.

4. No great golf course is without quality golfing turf.  Let the hay be bountiful and the rough nightmarishly overgrown and thick, but the fairways must be well groomed.  

5. No great golf course is without thrilling hazards.  With nothing to "take on" or "tackle" the spirit of golf is corrupt.  As George C. Thomas said, more or less, "The spirit of golf is to dare a hazard and reap a reward."  If hazards do not scare you, they are not hazardous!!!

6. No great golf course is without a variety of holes.  Short par 4's and a long par 3.  Some of the three shot holes should be reachable by two very well played shots.  At least one ought to be utterly unreachable in two.  Some of the par 4's should demand two of your absolute best.

In other words, every shot in your bag needs to be tested for a golf course to be considered great.  It should be a thorough examination of your game.

That's my two bits......written quickly.

 

[George Pazin]

Thanks for that, Michael.

It's interesting to me how you chose to state your principles, for the most part: no great course is without....

It'd be equally interesting to me if some of the more experienced members of the site could comment on if any great courses exist that violate your principles. They seem pretty solid to me.

I'll try to add more later.

One quick thing - the math geek in me wants to say, those may be necessary conditions for greatness, but are they sufficient? In other words, complete.

I don't know, I'll have to stew on that one a bit.

[BCrosby]

One quick thing - the math geek in me wants to say, those may be necessary conditions for greatness, but are they sufficient? In other words, complete.

That's not your math geek peeking around the corner. It's your philosophy geek. See Socrates et seq.

We can all come up with a decent list of necessary conditons for a good course.

The trick is coming up with sufficient conditions.

I don't think you can. One reason I think that must be right is because if we could, we would all be great architects. And we aren't.

Bob  

[Ted Kramer]

"on concave vs. convex . . .
A concave slope will lead to more similarity in landing/ending points for a golf ball, in other words balls played into a concave slope will tend collect in a defined area. A convex angle or slope will cause balls to bounce, roll and come rest in a much more random pattern."

Ted:

You're not kidding and in that basic fact may lie perhaps one of the most interesting dynamics imaginable between what suits the golfer and his play and what suits golf course architecture to be both strong and better able to withstand the basic forces of Nature.

Within that fact may lie the most fundamental "two way stretch" there is or ever could be between the game of golf and the physical endurance of golf course architecture.

Things would be so much easier if it were the other way around but it's not and it never will be!!  

 

The connection of a few ideas just started forming in my head, I'll do my best to put them together and hope that this line of reasoning ends up making a shred of sense . . .

Point #1
I could argue that "boring" golf is what we all aspire towards in terms of our play . . .in other words, fairways and greens. I don't know that we all yearn for the day that we have to hit a bunch of recovery shots. I think it is fair to say that we strive to hit fairways and greens and thus play "boring" golf.

Point #2
I also think it is fair to say that most of us don't like being told what to do. We like to do things our way. We like choices with regards to how we live our lives, spend our time and money, etc. Those choices have consequences and it is often our ability to deal with those consequences that help us to define who we are.

Point #3
The idea that we can learn from our experiences is very powerful. Learning and exploring is one of the great joys of being human. It is in our nature. Simple things like don't stick your hand on a hot stove, while important in terms of our learning and developing, isn't the type of learning/exploring that I'm referring to. I'm thinking more along the lines of things more detailed and complex. . . chess openings, poetry, physics, - things that can be explored in great depth.

**A concave collection area can not be explored in great depth. It is simple by nature, it is what it is, the same thing over and over. A convex mound, angle or slope is exactly the opposite. . .it will have your ball bouncing and behaving differently just about every time a shot is played into it. Thus:

*the convex slope does not allow us to play boring golf.
*the convex slope does allow us to decide to we can TRY to "use it"
*the convex slope does allow us to explore its nuances over and over again in a very detailed manner.

Like a convex slope, a well designed golf course offers us . . .

*The inability to play boring golf, even if that is what we are striving for
**Choices as to how we pursue our goal of playing the most boring golf possible
***And a never ending amount to learn and explore during our repeat plays

I'm sure this "idea" needs a ton of work and refinement, but maybe it has some merit? The idea of fighting one's ability to play it safe or boring, while forcing him or her to decide how to proceed, and supplying a constant amount of feedback for the sake of learning and improving . . .maybe kind of like being a parent?

-Ted

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob
but then it follows that great architects have come up with the necessary and sufficient conditions, as manifested on the ground. Have any of them formulated those as principles, and written them down someplace? Or does it simply not work that way?

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()