[JC Jones]

Mark,

Building on your post.  What core principle do we start with and then which 10 courses should be analyzed in light of that principle?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Grasshoppers

John Ruskin wrote that when it came to European architecture, everything boils down to just two categories (convex vs. straight ornaments), and the rest is window dressing, what he called "phantasms and grotesques."

Are such things as "schools" and "eras" really the deep architecture, or are they "grotesques" of those fundamental principles?

What does anyone learn by playing a "parkland" course?  How to hit out of trees?

A lot of what passes for "architectural styles" or "schools" these days really are phantasms and grotesques.

Inspired by Ruskin, Wethered and Simpson boiled it down to two: strategic and penal.  Then RTJ came along and added, or tried to add, the heroic.  That's probably a function of changes in I&B: in W&S's day the heroic surely was penal.

Even those sound overly complicated compared to "curved" vs "straight," though.

Resolved:  every great course relies primarily on the force of gravity or the force of wind.  (Corollary: lesser architectures tend to need both and / or ignore both.)

Gravity: routings by the terrain, undulating fairways and greens, deep and often large bunkers, closed / steep green fronts, etc.  Royal Melbourne West, Ganton, #2, Barnbougle Dunes (evidenced by the wild greens plus the choice to route a few holes off the linksland), Turnberry Ailsa and Cruden Bay.

Wind: routings by the compass (yes, sometimes terrain, too, but on linksland the choice of terrain tends to be too constrained for the types of choices available on force-gravity designs), flattish greens, small (in area, not function) bunkers, and all sorts of other stuff that boils down to "nae wind, nae gowf." Portmarnock, Muirfield, most out-and-back links.

Note well: some *allow* for the wind but the wind is not fundamental to their defense.  Every course is harder in the wind, but unlike force-gravity courses, force-wind courses literally are incomplete when becalmed, or even when played in the “wrong” wind.

Both may have width and angles, therefore "strategic" is a grotesque of the fundamental.  Both may deploy bunkers and hazards, therefore "penal" is a grotesque of the fundamental.

Both may employ certain types of conditioning, such as firm and fast, therefore conditioning (and by extension aesthetics) is a grotesque of the fundamental.

Conclusion: this exercise should, as a start, identify 30 courses which offer both excellence in gravity and wind designs plus illuminate the variety of gravity and wind designs.  As an example of the latter: out-and-back routings vs. circular routings.

Classical, minimalist, strategic, heroic may be worthwhile grotesques to include; however, we should realize they constitute the forms in which the functions are cloaked and as such choices should reflect their contribution to our understanding of the two fundamental forces, gravity and wind.

Master Po

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark, JC - thanks for the nice words. But that line didn't come so much from thinking as it did from editing - I just read everyone else's posts and thoughts and kept editing them down.

Mark - I believe the best education on the practical and theoretical underpinnings of the art, craft and business of golf course architecture can come from a careful study of the work, over time, of a single architect, especially if we look not so much for either an evolution or a broken string of one-offs in that work, but instead for the ways in which that architect may have attempted to manifest the principles of golf course architecture on differing sites, for different clients, and at different times - which approach may in fact help us to, after the fact, identify the very nature and qualities of those fundamental principles.

I'm not good at lists, Mark - and I'd especially want to know WHEN the following Mackenzie courses were completed. (I don't). But I'd like to see:       

Alwoodley
Royal Melbourne 
Palmetto
Augusta 
Crystal Downs
Cypress Point
The Jockey Club
The Valley Club
The Old Course
Pasatiempo

Peter

[Mark Pearce]

It seems to me that all the courses listed in any of the lists referred to on this thread are great courses on great property.  I wonder, do we learn more about architecture from the work of great architects on great land or moderate land?  Would the ideal list of 30 courses to learn about architecture be the 30 courses with highest VORP?  Or do we learn more from horrible architecture - do mistakes teach more than getting it right?  I suspect the answer to the last question is no but I wonder about the earlier questions.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark

Regarding the second question, it depends on the nature of the failure.  I would single out the "Noble Failure" as an object worthy of study -- if paired with the "Realized Success."

A Noble Failure is not necessarily a bad course, just one where the designer tried some ideas that didn't work out for any number of reasons.  Or it could be as you note a low-VORP course.

Here might be two sample pairings:

Noble Failure: Meadow Club
Realized Success: Alwoodley, Royal Melbourne West or, perhaps, El Boqueron

Meadow Club is a very good course, with much to recommend it.  But in some ways it shows the limits of Mackenzie's principles given things like terrain, local climate -- and lawyers.  Especially lawyers! (The problem, in a word: trees.)  In my mind, the design illustrates Mac's efforts to get down to the ur-TOC.

Noble Failure: Noordwijkse
Realized Success: Sacred Nine

This may not be the right twinning, but the former is low VORP and the latter is high VORP.  Noordwijkse is located on what must have been utterly fantastic dunesland.  It's not bad, but when you look across the fence on 5 (I think) at the property next door, and then head into a forest(!), your heart breaks at what might have been.

What might have been? Maybe for the Realized Success we need a dunesland course not the Royal Worlington.  Or maybe we twin it with Royal Worlington and, say, Ballybunion Old.

So, I suppose one possible syllabus, the Pearce VORP Conjecture, would be a list of such pairings.

Possibly, it could be just a segment in a syllabus, as well, although we must beware what Churchill called the pudding problem in speechwriting: lack of a theme!

Why don't you take a crack at it?

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

Yo Mark

Thanks to your last post I just read the first one.  Sorry for the delay--those magic mushrooms that Adam sent me were awesome, even though I just smelled them before throwing them in the bin..........

For me, at least the answer is clearly #5, although I'd modify it in terms of both the architects involved and making it their most instructive rather than best courses (i.e. maybe Pasatiempo rather than Cypress for Mackenzie, The Old Course rather than Dornoch for Morris, Winchester rather than Pinehurst #2 for Ross, or Rawls rather than Pacific Dunes for Doak).  This would be a cool exercise.  Could you begin?

Rich

To keep us going with getting some things down on paper, Rich, I'll put forward Doak's list with your changes if you respond with the rationale / justification for each.

EDIT: Doak rationale added (work in progress)
1. Addington (Abercromby) -- defines shot values starkly, illustrates the false distinction between "penal" and "strategic."

2. Ballybunion (Simpson) -- "one of the most brilliant routing plans ever conceived," as it "cuts back and forth between the coastline and the dunes so that not all the most spectacular holes on the course are all encountered in a line."  (A modern architect would save the coast for a big finish.)  Several all-world holes and the subtle but excellently conceived greens add a dimension to the test most GB&I links lack.

3. Casa de Campo (Dye) -- "the prototypical Pete Dye course: chock-full of outstanding holes with a spectacular bent to them, tremendous selection of tees to temper the difficulties of the course for any level of player, a routing with a near-mathematical symmetry to the angles of the doglegs and location of the principal hazards, and a picture-postcard set of par-3 holes"

4. Commonwealth (Lane and Morpeth) -- "the genius of Commonwealth is its adherence to one simple rule -- that each green should be oriented or tilted in such a way that it cradles an approach from one side of the fairway, but shoulders away shots from the incorrect line of attack."  The other secret to success is they left construction to a professional, the value being the ability to construct "natural-looking" greens and bunkers.

5. The Creek (Macdonald and Raynor) -- "a bit short in length, but long on character"

6. Pasatiempo (Mackenzie) -- "true to Mackenzie form, it plays much longer than the 6,400 yards on the scorecard; I wish I knew how he managed that." (From the writeup; Pasa not in Gourmet's Choice.)

7. Rawls (Doak) -- "the strong prevailing winds had a lot to do with the final design. Fairway bunkers jut prominently into the line of play, forcing players to judge whether they can make the carry in the wind conditions of the moment. Wide fairways give the player a chance to drive to one side, and use a quartering wind to help stop an approach shot instead of sweeping it away. Downwind approach shots will likely run quite far after they land, so players must place their tee shot to play around any hazards at the front of the green, instead of having to carry them. The varying winds mean that the length of tee shots will vary from day-to-day, and ensure that the course plays differently from one day to the next." (Note: these are Doak's comments on the Rawls website.)

8. Desert Highlands (Nicklaus) -- the first desert course to carry the concept of the "desert course" to completion: it is theoretically impossible to integrate a golf course into a desert environment.  Nicklaus's "unique design" of double-wide fairways and transition bunkers are responsible for the success.

9. Durban Country Club (Waters and Waterman) -- "unlike any links course you've seen, Durban's best holes are set across the very tops of the dunes, as well as through the valleys between them." The first five holes, the 8th and 17-18 are "absolutely outstanding and, in some cases, unique holes which everyone should see in their lifetime."

10. Forest Highlands (Morrish and Weiskopf) -- "the fairway clearings are ample, giving the course a scale to complement the scenery around it...despite their their unusually small number, the two-shot holes are the class of the course...meanwhile the short and long holes complement each other well."

11. Garden City (Emmet & Travis)
12. Kawana (Alison)
13. Lancaster (Flynn)
14. Merion (Wilson)
15. The National (Macdonald)
16. North Berwick (Strath, revision)
17. Winchester (Ross)
18. Pine Valley (Crump & Colt)
19. Prairie Dunes (Maxwell & Maxwell)
20. Riviera (Thomas)
21. Royal Dornoch (Morris -- Rich, Doak, calls N Ber and TOC "natural links")
22. Rye, England (Campbell, revision)
23. St. Andrews ("nature" -- this seems bogus)
24. St. Enodoc (Braid)
25. St. George's (Thompson)
26. St. George's Hill (Colt)
27. Sand Hills Club (C&C)
28. San Francisco (Tillinghast)
29. Shadow Creek (Fazio & Wynn)
30. Westward Ho! (Fowler, revision)
31. Woodhall Spa (Hotchkin)

One of the issues in using the Doak list -- and his rationale -- is that he really is giving us more a list of designers to study, so the excerpts above may take his comments out of context.  The courses represent what the designers were after.  That's different than what we're after.

Mark

[JC Jones]

Yo Mark

Thanks to your last post I just read the first one.  Sorry for the delay--those magic mushrooms that Adam sent me were awesome, even though I just smelled them before throwing them in the bin..........

For me, at least the answer is clearly #5, although I'd modify it in terms of both the architects involved and making it their most instructive rather than best courses (i.e. maybe Pasatiempo rather than Cypress for Mackenzie, The Old Course rather than Dornoch for Morris, Winchester rather than Pinehurst #2 for Ross, or Rawls rather than Pacific Dunes for Doak).  This would be a cool exercise.  Could you begin?

Rich

To keep us going with getting some things down on paper, Rich, I'll put forward Doak's list with your changes if you respond with the rationale / justification for each.

1. Addington (Abercromby)
2. Ballybunion (Simpson)
3. Casa de Campo (Dye)
4. Commonwealth (Lane and Morpeth)
5. The Creek (Macdonald and Raynor)
6. Pasatiempo (Mackenzie)
7. Rawls (Doak)
8. Desert Highlands (Nicklaus)
9. Durban Country Club (Waters and Waterman)
10. Forest Highlands (Morrish and Weiskopf)
11. Garden City (Emmet & Travis)
12. Kawana (Alison)
13. Lancaster (Flynn)
14. Merion (Wilson)
15. The National (Macdonald)
16. North Berwick (Strath, revision)
17. Winchester (Ross)
18. Pine Valley (Crump & Colt)
19. Prairie Dunes (Maxwell & Maxwell)
20. Riviera (Thomas)
21. Royal Dornoch (Morris -- Rich, Doak, calls N Ber and TOC "natural links")
22. Rye, England (Campbell, revision)
23. St. Andrews ("nature" -- this seems bogus)
24. St. Enodoc (Braid)
25. St. George's (Thompson)
26. St. George's Hill (Colt)
27. Sand Hills Club (C&C)
28. San Francisco (Tillinghast)
29. Shadow Creek (Fazio & Wynn)
30. Westward Ho! (Fowler, revision)
31. Woodhall Spa (Hotchkin)

Mark

Why is Sand Hills the most instructive for C&C and Pacific Dunes is not for Doak?

[Sean_A]

I'd suggest that, if such a thing as core and fundamental principles exist, they exist independently of whether or not they were made manifest at TOC.

Wow.  I think you are absolutely correct w/ that statement.  I could not agree more.  Perhaps, TOC is the closest a course has come to a complete manifestation of those principles.

So, you would argue that those principles consistent throughout Mackenzie's designs would be indication of what the core and fundamental principles were and where he got them from is irrelevant.  What is relevant is what they are and that you can learn them from his courses alone.

I dont want to put words in your mouth, but am I correct in my interpretation of your argument?

Before you lot get too deep into back patting, would you care to explain this concept in some detail.  From my perspective, I don't really know what "those principles" are and if they do exist, what are examples of such?

JJ

The few courses I tossed out were merely suggestions from my experience.  There may very well be better examples and the courses I listed may well demonstrate other aspects of architecture than the blurbs I slapped down.  

Mark

Doak's list need a rationale for each course.  I don't have a clue what the list represents other than Doak's ideas he presented in his book.  I am not at all sure how this translates for your purposes.  That said, at least its a start and it takes us away from the philosophy falafel.

Ciao

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean
I agree -- I think Rich will be moving us past Doak with his own descriptions. Meanwhile, I will see if I can get in thumbnail Doak rationales.  At any rate, patience!

JC
Same as for Sean, plus, regarding Sand Hills, a lot of C&C hadn't come out at the time of publication (not that Sand Hills would not remain the choice).  Regarding Rawls and not others, not to put words in Rich's mouth but building on Mark P's comments Rawls arguably is a "purer" example of design intent.  Either that, or it's a course worth studying for its relationship to the wind.

Both
This is intended as a group effort: feel free to provide your own rationale for a listed course or to swap one course for another.  Alternately, as Peter is doing you can supply your own list. (Or complete them, as it were.)

Mark

[JC Jones]

Before you lot get too deep into back patting, would you care to explain this concept in some detail.  From my perspective, I don't really know what "those principles" are and if they do exist, what are examples of such?

JJ

The few courses I tossed out were merely suggestions from my experience.  There may very well be better examples and the courses I listed may well demonstrate other aspects of architecture than the blurbs I slapped down. 

Second point first:  The point I was trying to make is Im not sure it matters whether they are the best examples of what you are trying to prove, only that they are examples.

First point second:  I think Peter's point is that you could figure out what "those principles" are by looking to see what Mac carried from course to course to course.  i.e., what all of his courses have in common.  If Mac felt strongly enough about those core principles to carry them to each course, then those must be THE core principles.  And that those core principles are core principles and exist whether manifested in the course or not.

So, there are core principles of golf course architecture and they exist irrespective of TOC.  The next step is exactly your question, figuring out what they are.  And, while many of them may exist at TOC, they arent core principles because they exist at TOC.

(Now, I happen to disagree w/ Peter's philosophy b/c I think what you'd end up with would be Mac's core principles and not the core principles, generally.  And, I also think that not only does each designer have their own core principles but that each era (i.e. classical, modern, neo-classical, etc.) has its own core principles.  Hence my advocacy of a much broader sample.  But I digress.)

[JC Jones]

Regarding Rawls and not others, not to put words in Rich's mouth but building on Mark P's comments Rawls arguably is a "purer" example of design intent.  Either that, or it's a course worth studying for its relationship to the wind.

"purer example of design intent."  How so?  If it is b/c he had to "create" more at Rawls than at Pacific Dunes then I think the same argument would be made against Sand Hills because "the course was there."

[JC Jones]

This is intended as a group effort: feel free to provide your own rationale for a listed course or to swap one course for another.  Alternately, as Peter is doing you can supply your own list. (Or complete them, as it were.)

Mark

Where I fail in this thread is being able to articulate which courses represent which "core principles" or could provide the education.  It is simply b/c I dont have the playing experience.  W/ respect to the courses worthy of this discussion, Im afraid my experience is limited to Crystal Downs and Pacific Dunes.

That being said, I am intrigued with how the list should be devised and what it should reflect.  I'll leave the actual placing of the courses up to those with more experience than I.

[Sean_A]

Before you lot get too deep into back patting, would you care to explain this concept in some detail.  From my perspective, I don't really know what "those principles" are and if they do exist, what are examples of such?

JJ

The few courses I tossed out were merely suggestions from my experience.  There may very well be better examples and the courses I listed may well demonstrate other aspects of architecture than the blurbs I slapped down. 

Second point first:  The point I was trying to make is Im not sure it matters whether they are the best examples of what you are trying to prove, only that they are examples.

First point second:  I think Peter's point is that you could figure out what "those principles" are by looking to see what Mac carried from course to course to course.  i.e., what all of his courses have in common.  If Mac felt strongly enough about those core principles to carry them to each course, then those must be THE core principles.  And that those core principles are core principles and exist whether manifested in the course or not.

So, there are core principles of golf course architecture and they exist irrespective of TOC.  The next step is exactly your question, figuring out what they are.  And, while many of them may exist at TOC, they arent core principles because they exist at TOC.

(Now, I happen to disagree w/ Peter's philosophy b/c I think what you'd end up with would be Mac's core principles and not the core principles, generally.  And, I also think that not only does each designer have their own core principles but that each era (i.e. classical, modern, neo-classical, etc.) has its own core principles.  Hence my advocacy of a much broader sample.  But I digress.)

JCJ

In a way, the interesting question is do core principles change/alter depending on the goal of the design? I have no way of knowing, but my gut tells me the principles of architecture remain the same no matter how there are manifested in design.  In practical terms, it all a matter of degrees and it is down to person to decide (if it matters) where designs fall on the scale.  In other words, design principles are all shades of gray rather and terribly wishy washy in practice - though in theory they come over as concrete.  Its also ironic that Dr Mac is being used as an example because he probably came across as one of the most unyielding designers in theory, but was this really the case?  Surely Dr Mac learned from his mistakes or at the very least evolved. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Regarding Rawls and not others, not to put words in Rich's mouth but building on Mark P's comments Rawls arguably is a "purer" example of design intent.  Either that, or it's a course worth studying for its relationship to the wind.

"purer example of design intent."  How so?  If it is b/c he had to "create" more at Rawls than at Pacific Dunes then I think the same argument would be made against Sand Hills because "the course was there."

JC

I've added an excerpt of Doak's comments on Rawls in Reply #55 and, reflecting upon them, am inclined to agree with Rich, although I've never played the course.  It sounds like a rather "pure" examination of how architecture can not simply make allowances for but actively incorporate the wind into design.

That doesn't mean it's a great course or Doak's best or possibly even one of Doak's better, just one I could learn more / a lot.

Mark

[JC Jones]

JC

I've added an excerpt of Doak's comments on Rawls in Reply #55 and, reflecting upon them, am inclined to agree with Rich, although I've never played the course.  It sounds like a rather "pure" examination of how architecture can not simply make allowances for but actively incorporate the wind into design.

That doesn't mean it's a great course or Doak's best or possibly even one of Doak's better, just one I could learn more / a lot.

Mark

Fair enough.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Here's a beginning -- a very preliminary beginning -- on a wind-gravity list.

Studies in force-gravity design
1. Cruden Bay -- from Ran's writeup: "Some holes are pure linksland, one is on top of a ridge, one is in a bowl, one falls off a ridge and others are sandwiched between the ridge and the North Sea. There are blind shots, consecutive par threes, and two drivable par fours.  The result? A course that inspires golfers the world over. By letting the land dictate the course, Simpson and Fowler came up with an absolute winning 'formula.' They delivered on what Tom Doak points out is the most basic element of good routing: that the holes follow the same path a person would take if he were to walk the property before the course was built."

2. Pinehurst #2
3. Pine Valley
4. Royal Melbourne Composite
5. Rye (uneven lies plus second / greenside shots)

Studies in force-wind design
1. Ganton
2. Muirfield
3. Portmarnock

3.  Prairie Dunes -- could be studied for gravity (Maxwell Rolls!), but the locals will tell you the course needs a wind from a certain direction and of a certain speed to present the intended test.

4. Rawls
5. Seminole
6. Shinnecock

Do you think this wind-gravity distinction is meaningful?  For example, couldn’t an argument be made for Prairie Dunes and Rye to go on either side?  Does this matter – should the list be merged into one?

(BTW, at this point I am not confident these courses actually belong on either list or what the rationale is for making the list.  It’s a first take.)

Another unresolved issue is to what extent force-gravity and force-wind designs vary; if the two aspects tend to rely on the same (short) list of principles, then there may not be enough for a list or to study, and some other rationale should be used, perhaps the one-design-per-architect approach.

But I continue to struggle with the intellectual justification for a designers’ list.  Aren’t we studying finished designs not designers, construction processes, etc?  It seems like an irrelevant constraint is being imposed.

Mark

[JC Jones]

Mark

If I understand correctly, you are arguing that there is a difference in the "core principles" of a Wind course vs a Gravity course? 

I can buy that.

Would you classify PacDunes as Wind or Gravity?  I'd say wind b/c the course plays differently depending on the prevailing wind, but the constant is that there is wind and I would say the course is significantly less difficult w/o the prevailing wind.

[Adam Clayman]

Rihc, I'm an uneducated dolt. But consider the possibility you are devoid of feeling anything visceral from gca? Your need to diss anyone who does, shows a superiority only surpassed by... by... (I have no point)

What exactly did the Secretary at the Pickerman course want you to see? Or did he expect you to feel it rushing around in a cart?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Well, if there is a difference it would lie in understanding what's underneath the notion of the oft-said statement "Course X's primary defense is the wind."

Force-gravity elements seem more likely / easy.  Not sure yet about the wind.

Here are some possible principles relating to force-wind.

"Sum" Principles
1. Ideal routing is an "Olympic Triangle" routing: should include beat, reach, and run legs (relative to prevailing wind). Muirfield and Kennemer good examples.

The Doak write-up on Rawls seems to indicate a few "parts" principles (these probably are more like examples of the principles, actually)
2. "Fairway bunkers jut prominently into the line of play, forcing players to judge whether they can make the carry in the wind conditions of the moment."

3. "Wide fairways give the player a chance to drive to one side, and use a quartering wind to help stop an approach shot instead of sweeping it away."

4. "Downwind approach shots will likely run quite far after they land, so players must place their tee shot to play around any hazards at the front of the green, instead of having to carry them."

Mark

[JC Jones]

Mark

In post #68, I think you mean possible principles relating to force-wind not force-gravity.

I would agree w/ your Sum Principle that an ideal routing is an Olympic Triangle that provides 6 sub courses of 3 holes a piece that rotate the effect of the wind.

Could another routing also be an equilateral triangle where the course is routed in a more "out" then "in" fashion and the player is provided with 3 sub courses of six holes a piece; each sub course having the wind play the same for the entire sub course?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Thanks for that. Change made.

Not sure I understand the last question, but when I mention Olympic Triangle I just mean at least some holes should fit each leg, not necessarily an equal proportion or for that matter 18 holes running in straight line segments to form the perimeter of a giant triangle.

The clockwise-anticlockwise routings of Muirfield and Kennemer fit this:

Muirfield


Kennemer -- note this is 27 holes


Mark

[Rich Goodale]

Rihc, I'm an uneducated dolt. But consider the possibility you are devoid of feeling anything visceral from gca? Your need to diss anyone who does, shows a superiority only surpassed by... by... (I have no point)

What exactly did the Secretary at the Pickerman course want you to see? Or did he expect you to feel it rushing around in a cart?

Sorry if you felt I was dissing you, Adam.  That was not the intent.  I appreciate your honesty when you say, in effect, I don't know why I like gca but I know it when I like it.  Kumbaya, friend--we are in more agreement than you or even I might think.

I and some of the others on this thread are just  trying to articulate why we like certain gca and less like others, using "lists" as a tool.  Humour us, please as we struggle.

As for my cart ride, the trip to Portmarnock was an unplanned one and my time restricted by a plane to catch.  My plan had been to do a Clayman (i.e. walk around a bit and smell the flowers, eat the mushrooms....), but when the cart was kindly offerred to me I took it and was able to add a few thousand yards of additional sensations.  It was hectic, but fun, maybe even visceral....

Rich

[Adam Clayman]

Rihc, I'll stick with my early hallucinations that the majority who will read your words need not play any esoteric list to learn about gca. I also get the impression that most golfers, and many members of this forum, would not be able to play a list that has a majority of great courses on it.

This also leads to the possibility that many a golfer might not feel anything due to the quality of courses they have played. Which of course leads to my naive theory about how poor gca has led to the loss of interest in the sport and it's ability to attract new players, for the first time in 500+ years.

[Sean_A]

Here's a beginning -- a very preliminary beginning -- on a wind-gravity list.

Studies in force-gravity design
1. Cruden Bay -- from Ran's writeup: "Some holes are pure linksland, one is on top of a ridge, one is in a bowl, one falls off a ridge and others are sandwiched between the ridge and the North Sea. There are blind shots, consecutive par threes, and two drivable par fours.  The result? A course that inspires golfers the world over. By letting the land dictate the course, Simpson and Fowler came up with an absolute winning 'formula.' They delivered on what Tom Doak points out is the most basic element of good routing: that the holes follow the same path a person would take if he were to walk the property before the course was built."

2. Pinehurst #2
3. Pine Valley
4. Royal Melbourne Composite
5. Rye (second shots)

Studies in force-wind design
1. Ganton
2. Muirfield
3. Portmarnock

3.  Prairie Dunes -- could be studied for gravity (Maxwell Rolls!), but the locals will tell you the course needs a wind from a certain direction and of a certain speed to present the intended test.

4. Rawls
5. Seminole
6. Shinnecock

Do you think this wind-gravity distinction is meaningful?  For example, couldn’t an argument be made for Prairie Dunes and Rye to go on either side?  Does this matter – should the list be merged into one?

(BTW, at this point I am not confident these courses actually belong on either list or what the rationale is for making the list.  It’s a first take.)

Another unresolved issue is to what extent force-gravity and force-wind designs vary; if the two aspects tend to rely on the same (short) list of principles, then there may not be enough for a list or to study, and some other rationale should be used, perhaps the one-design-per-architect approach.

But I continue to struggle with the intellectual justification for a designers’ list.  Aren’t we studying finished designs not designers, construction processes, etc?  It seems like an irrelevant constraint is being imposed.

Mark

Mark

This is an interesting selection which seems to hang about more championship designs.  A few points to make. 

1. Muirfield, it is difficult for me to believe that a course with ~150 bunkers (and the ever present rough) is an ideal choice for wind force design.  Though from a broader perspective, most any links can be used for this idea.  However, imo, a better choice for wind force design would be a course which offers width - something championship courses distinctly lack because the need to challenge the very best of players.  I think Muirfield is a great example of superb bunkering - right along side Woodall.

2. I would have thought the same thing which is true of wind force is true of gravity force.  Width is essential, plus, there obviously needs to be a fair amount of land movement. 

With these two points in mind, I don't think a better example of the "genre" is Pennard.  This is a course which depends wholly on gravity and wind force much more than any championship course could.  North Berwick is also not a bad choice.  Kington is also a excellent choice.  Why do you think these are two of my favourite courses on the planet?  Wind and gravity are the two "design" elements which I admire the most and I can't think of any other courses which can top these.  There is one caveat though.  Often times, archies build in safe guards for wing and gravity.  Meaning containment mounding/bunkering is used to hold shots up.  Both Kington and Pennard are unrelenting in being anti-containment.  So I would say both are extreme examples and perhaps this is why they are not often seen as great courses.   

3. I would consider North Berwick an excellent example of wind-force design.  Though it is on a tight property (which makes it all the more unusual for wind force design), there is ample room to let the wind perform its tricks in both helpful and not so helpful ways to the golfer. 

Ciao   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Good post, Sean.  One question about width, though: isn't there a difference between a design that uses width to allow for the wind and one that uses width to take advantage of the wind?

There isn't any inherent value in width, is there? In force-gravity design, width is there to supply a relationship to the green (e.g., hole location of the day, the side upon which the green opens up or how the green is angled -- these are all gravitational issues).  In force-wind design, width is there to supply a relationship to the wind, for example to use the wind to "steer" his tee shot to a certain position or to position his ball for the next shot, which he would like to hit into the wind along a certain vector (see Tom Doak's comments on Rawls re quartering winds).

EDIT: is my wind-force point in the paragraph above the point you are making with N Berwick?

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()