Holes that take you away from the ocean

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

NO, the ocean was there before the architect arrived, and it remained static/untouched during his work, and it remains intact, unchanged after he, along with Elvis, has left the building.

If the architecture is bad, you're saying that whipped cream on s==t is still a decent meal.

[Scott Warren]

Pat,

You continue to either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent the position I am presenting.

Using your analogy, I am not positing that Bodega Harbour (which I have not played) would then be the best course in the world, merely that Bodega Habour would likely be a more pleasant place to play golf being by the sea than if it were routed through a garbage tip or housing estate.

Is your interaction with a painting in part affected by the ambiance of the gallery?
Is a concert added to or detracted from by the quality of the theatre?

I'd say yes, and by the same token, a golfing experience is contributed to, either positively or negatively, by the environment through which the course is routed.

This is not about a good vista wallpapering over the cracks of bad golf course architecture, it's about the impact the seaside has on the golfer's soul and which holes do the best job of keeping the momentum rolling when that is taken away.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

NO, the ocean was there before the architect arrived, and it remained static/untouched during his work, and it remains intact, unchanged after he, along with Elvis, has left the building.

If the architecture is bad, you're saying that whipped cream on s==t is still a decent meal.

Pat

Your hyperbole doesn't has no bearing on the subject at hand.  If an archies does nothing to an existing landform on golf course and uses it au naturale, is this is this not architecture?  If not, then I understand your position however, I wouldn't agree.  If so, I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.  Though I must say its always worth a try. 

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

Porthcawl's Par 3 4th, Par 5 5th and Par 4 6th takes you slightly uphill away from the Irish Sea after the opening 3 beach holes! Two contrasting 3 hole sequences with similar orientation. The first 3 holes head northward and the second 3 holes head eastward.
We will defintely find out at BUDA 2010! I much prefer Porthcawl than Hoylake and there is more land for hospitality etc. Come on R&A bring the Open to Wales!!

Cheers
Ben

[Anthony Butler]

At NSW the 7th and 15th are holes I always look forward to, even though they end the seaside stretches.

Scott,

Your post caused me to consider that even though 7 and 15 play 'away' from the ocean, they are mostly played into the prevailing wind.

Most of the time on a hole like this, you're looking for a breather with the onshore wind helping.

As a result, you will most likely find they are the two most consistently demanding driving holes on the course. There's no good place to miss.

[Jim Sweeney]

Number 7 at Fisher's Island must rank high on the list of quality holes leading away from the ocean, In this case, the hole serves as the connector between the holes bordering the open Atlantic and those on Long Island Sound. The hole is sharply uphill from the tee to the highest point on the course, offering a panoramic view of the sound, the southern tip of Rhode Island, and a lot of Connecticut coastline. Though not a long hole (a short three shotter) the fairway tilts and buckles making the tee shot and subsequent lie perhaps the most interesting on the course. It is one of (if I remember correctly) three holes on the couse not bordered by water somehow connected to the sea.

[Tom_Doak]

I prefer not to turn my back on the ocean and play inland, but to switch back and play parallel with the ocean still in view, as on the 14th at Pacific Dunes.  If I am going to turn my back on the ocean there had better be something cool to play toward ... Old Macdonald does that very well at both the 8th and 16th.

[Alex Miller]

17 at Bandon Dunes is a great hole that takes you away from the ocean. In fact, it may be the "best" hole on the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You continue to either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent the position I am presenting.

I don't think I'm doing either, I'm just going by what you wrote.

Using your analogy, I am not positing that Bodega Harbour (which I have not played) would then be the best course in the world, merely that Bodega Habour would likely be a more pleasant place to play golf being by the sea than if it were routed through a garbage tip or housing estate.

Why not use an analogy more absurd than the one you presented, rather than a garbage dump, let's make it a ghetto, where every time you stop to hit a shot you're held up at gun point or TEPaul approaches you with a tin cup in hand asking for a few dollars so that he can winter in Fernandina Beach for the winter ?

Is your interaction with a painting in part affected by the ambiance of the gallery?
My interaction with the painting is based on the quality of the painting, not the window dressing

Is a concert added to or detracted from by the quality of the theatre?
The quality of the music, not the surroundings determines how much I enjoy the concert.
It's the MUSIC that's the draw, NOT the Theatre

I'd say yes, and by the same token, a golfing experience is contributed to, either positively or negatively, by the environment through which the course is routed.

AHA, now we get to the crux of the matter.
You're focused on the "experience" whereas, I'm focused on the quality of the architecture and how it affects play.

Under your premise, CCFAD's flourish.
Great looking Cart Girls in provocative outfits, all the beer and food a man could need, fountains, waterfalls, and all the glitz needed to maximize the EXPERIENCE.

Whereas, I'd rather spare the sizzle, and focus on the steak, the architecture.

Hence, we're focusing on different aspects of playing golf.
You're focused on the experience and I'm focused on the architecture and how it impacts play.
Why didn't you say so in the first place ?

This is not about a good vista wallpapering over the cracks of bad golf course architecture, it's about the impact the seaside has on the golfer's soul and which holes do the best job of keeping the momentum rolling when that is taken away.

I hope you see what you've done and where you've gone wrong.
You're suffering from a split personality.
On the ocean hole you want the experience and on the non-ocean hole you want the architecture.
You're mixing apples and orangutans

Well at least you're halfway in my camp, now if I can just convince you that the ocean hole/s need architectural merit, you'll have the benefit of sharing my opinion

[Chris DeNigris]

I think Castle Stuart does that really well with number 4-  the castle itself hovering above the green.  A nice diversion from the fantastic opening 3 hole stretch along the firth.

The walk up the hill after the par 5 12th....not so much. Camo coke machine notwithstanding 

[Will MacEwen]

17 at Bandon Dunes is a great hole that takes you away from the ocean. In fact, it may be the "best" hole on the course.

Alex - I have pumped 17 several times on here.  I think it is a great hole.  

I love that after the drama of 16, you do in fact turn 90 degrees away from the ocean.  Late in the day, you see the clubhouse, and know that with some good work you can finish your round 4-4 and soon have beer in your hand.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

17 at Bandon Dunes is a great hole that takes you away from the ocean. In fact, it may be the "best" hole on the course.

Alex, when playing # 17, if the golfer looks to his right, toward the south, the ocean's view never leaves him.
Few holes are afforded that benefit and that may be a strength of the routing.
However, I find the 90* attack on the ocean produces less of a dynamic view when playing an entire hole

[Scott Warren]

Why not use an analogy more absurd than the one you presented, rather than a garbage dump, let's make it a ghetto, where every time you stop to hit a shot you're held up at gun point or TEPaul approaches you with a tin cup in hand asking for a few dollars so that he can winter in Fernandina Beach for the winter ?[/b][/size][/color]

You mean an analogy even more absurd than shit with whipped cream on top?

AHA, now we get to the crux of the matter.
You're focused on the "experience" whereas, I'm focused on the quality of the architecture and how it affects play.

Under your premise, CCFAD's flourish.
Great looking Cart Girls in provocative outfits, all the beer and food a man could need, fountains, waterfalls, and all the glitz needed to maximize the EXPERIENCE.

Whereas, I'd rather spare the sizzle, and focus on the steak, the architecture.

Hence, we're focusing on different aspects of playing golf.
You're focused on the experience and I'm focused on the architecture and how it impacts play.
Why didn't you say so in the first place ?

So you play golf completely uninterested in how the elements that complement the architecture either enhance or detract from the fun of tackling the holes and  working out how to take them on on that day?

I'm not saying such factors make a hole better or worse architecturally, but that they are still part of what you are experiencing.



I hope you see what you've done and where you've gone wrong.
You're suffering from a split personality.
On the ocean hole you want the experience and on the non-ocean hole you want the architecture.
You're mixing apples and orangutans

Well at least you're halfway in my camp, now if I can just convince you that the ocean hole/s need architectural merit, you'll have the benefit of sharing my opinion

Can you direct me to where I said oceanside holes didn't need architectural merit?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

NO, the ocean was there before the architect arrived, and it remained static/untouched during his work, and it remains intact, unchanged after he, along with Elvis, has left the building.

If the architecture is bad, you're saying that whipped cream on s==t is still a decent meal.

Pat
Your hyperbole doesn't has no bearing on the subject at hand. 

Sure it does, it categorizes previously stated positions quite well

If an archies does nothing to an existing landform on golf course and uses it au naturale, is this is this not architecture?
Like in "My Cousin Vinny" it's a BS question.
An impossible hypothetical, one not germane to the subject at hand 

If not, then I understand your position however, I wouldn't agree. 

If so, I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. 
I don't see anything wrong with that  

But, in truth, I'm not trying to have it both ways.
I'm stating that the presence of the ocean is a function of the site selection not the choice of the architect.
And, that the architect has no influence over the ocean, and it's locatiion and its proximity to the site.
The architect chooses, through his routing, how the golfer will approach and depart from the ocean.
The architect will craft each hole individually, within the general context of preserving a continuity within the routing

Irrespective of how the architect chooses to have the golfer approach and depart the ocean holes, if the architecture within the individual holes is lacking in merit, the view of the ocean will not overcome that flaw, for anyone but the obtuse, the architecturally challenged


Though I must say its always worth a try.

Agreed 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why not use an analogy more absurd than the one you presented, rather than a garbage dump, let's make it a ghetto, where every time you stop to hit a shot you're held up at gun point or TEPaul approaches you with a tin cup in hand asking for a few dollars so that he can winter in Fernandina Beach for the winter ?[/b][/size][/color]

You mean an analogy even more absurd than shit with whipped cream on top?

That was a very apt analogy

AHA, now we get to the crux of the matter.
You're focused on the "experience" whereas, I'm focused on the quality of the architecture and how it affects play.

Under your premise, CCFAD's flourish.
Great looking Cart Girls in provocative outfits, all the beer and food a man could need, fountains, waterfalls, and all the glitz needed to maximize the EXPERIENCE.

Whereas, I'd rather spare the sizzle, and focus on the steak, the architecture.

Hence, we're focusing on different aspects of playing golf.
You're focused on the experience and I'm focused on the architecture and how it impacts play.
Why didn't you say so in the first place ?

So you play golf completely uninterested in how the elements that complement the architecture either enhance or detract from the fun of tackling the holes and  working out how to take them on on that day?

They don't go unnoticed, but, they're not the focal point of my evaluations on the merits of the architecture on a given hole or holes or course.  AND, how that architecture interfaces with the golfer and impacts/influences play

I'm not saying such factors make a hole better or worse architecturally, but that they are still part of what you are experiencing.



I hope you see what you've done and where you've gone wrong.
You're suffering from a split personality.
On the ocean hole you want the experience and on the non-ocean hole you want the architecture.
You're mixing apples and orangutans

Well at least you're halfway in my camp, now if I can just convince you that the ocean hole/s need architectural merit, you'll have the benefit of sharing my opinion

Can you direct me to where I said oceanside holes didn't need architectural merit?

I thought you implied it when you responded to my comment.  Which was

Moving away from the ocean presents the same challenge as moving toward it does, unless you're analysis is blinded by the visual
You then said,

That's true from a purely architectural POV, but I think most golfers take in much more than just the architecture in the sensory experience of playing golf.

That's what I was trying to get at. Playing along or towards the ocean, with such thrilling views, sounds and smells, adds an extra element to merely enjoying a fine golf course, so when you turn away from the water, especially if dunes or trees remove it from sight/sound quite quickly, you abruptly lose an X factor that heightens your enjoyment of the course and the general golfing experience.

Followed by:

I would argue that even those golfers who can appreciate and enjoy architecture are still human, and humans are affected by things that make them feel good - a beautiful view, a pleasant scent, a fond memory, to feel loved - all of those things are able to affect us at any time, including when we are playing golf.

Then
A poor golf hole is still a poor golf hole, but will 99.9% of people enjoy the experience more if they are in a beautiful setting? I think so.

If I misunderstood you, it's TEPaul's fault

[/b][/size]

[James Boon]

I can to a certain extent see Patrick's point that its about the architecture and not the experience. But let me try an analogy...

You are reading a good book, but you are sitting on a scuzzy train surrounded by the scum of humanity. Its got to be a real good book to keep you interested, but if it is, you will be lost in the book and the surrounding wont matter so much. But if you are reading a not so good book, but sitting by a log fire with a great view out the window and your favourite beverage by your side, it probably doesn't matter too much, how good the book is, as the experience is still enjoyable?

The important thing here for me, is that the author has no input into where people read and experience what he has written.

With a golf course, the context for that golf course is unavoidable, whether its an ocean view, stunning hills in the distance, an adjacent graveyard or a huge industrial complex. The golf course architect cant avoid it. Now sure a you could have a bad hole with a good setting or a good hole with a bad setting, but its how the architect responds to that context, that can really lift things to the next level! And he has to respond to the context whatever that may be, otherwise its say no to the commission and build his next course elsewhere.

So how do you follow that book you read on holiday (fire, view, beverage) no matter how good it was, when you are on your commute to work the next week? Well you probably make sure its a damn good book you are reading!

Thats enough of analogies from me for today 

Cheers,

James

 

[Andrew Summerell]

You're focused on the experience and I'm focused on the architecture and how it impacts play.

It would be a shame not to enjoy the experience of the architecture.

Great looking Cart Girls in provocative outfits, all the beer and food a man could need, fountains, waterfalls, and all the glitz needed to maximize the EXPERIENCE.

You don't really believe that's all EXPERIENCE is on a golf course, do you? It would be sad if you do.

The quality of the music, not the surroundings determines how much I enjoy the concert.

That last quote is just plain wrong. That's why orchestras prefer to perform in concert halls with good acoustics instead of some 3rd rate school hall. Composers have even been known to compose for it & conductors arrange to utilise the good acoustics of a concert hall.

Most of us on here are interested in the architecture, but 95% of the golfing world doesn’t care as much. If they are playing a relatively poor hole with a beautiful view, they won’t mind.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Nice work James

This is from Tom Doak's (in)famous review of Seaton Carew  - a course by the sea and thought of quite highly by some on here.

"This might be a reasonably good links layout, but I was too chilled by the setting to even walk the course. It occupies the fringe of an industrial wasteland...and the menacing cooling-tower cones of the nearby supphuric acid plant were too reminicent of Three Mile Islabd for there to be any joy in golf here"

There have been a few similar threads about this and I conclude that Patrick is the only person who can completely divorce the surroundings from the architecture.  For normal humans it just can't be done .




To get back to the subject I surprised no one has mentioned North Berwick. Most people think of it as one of the best seaside experiences but that's really only true of 1,2,3 and the 17th green.  Thats the genius of the routing, get's the sea in your mind and it never quite leaves it.

[Andrew Summerell]

I conclude that Patrick is the only person who can completely divorce the surroundings from the architecture.

But should you completely divorce the surroundings from the architecture when the architect has intentionally used the surrounding?

[Scott Warren]

Andrew, thank you for mentioning that strange list of experiences Pat listed, I forgot to reply to that.

Of the four things he listed I can't remember the last course I played that had any of them.

But they did have any combination of great views, perfect weather, firm turf, good friends to play with/against etc - all of which make a round - whether it's at Royal St George's or Central London Golf Centre - more enjoyable.

[James Boon]

Nice work James

This is from Tom Doak's (in)famous review of Seaton Carew  - a course by the sea and thought of quite highly by some on here.

"This might be a reasonably good links layout, but I was too chilled by the setting to even walk the course. It occupies the fringe of an industrial wasteland...and the menacing cooling-tower cones of the nearby supphuric acid plant were too reminicent of Three Mile Islabd for there to be any joy in golf here"

There have been a few similar threads about this and I conclude that Patrick is the only person who can completely divorce the surroundings from the architecture.  For normal humans it just can't be done .




To get back to the subject I surprised no one has mentioned North Berwick. Most people think of it as one of the best seaside experiences but that's really only true of 1,2,3 and the 17th green.  Thats the genius of the routing, get's the sea in your mind and it never quite leaves it.

Thanks Tony,

I can't believe no ones mentioned North Berwick yet, myself included, but I think you've missed the best of the bunch  After your blind approach to 14, its over the rise with the green down by the sea, what a setting! Then its back in land to a little known hole, called Redan or something like that...  So joking aside 15th, The Redan at North Berwick has to be one of the best holes to take us away from the sea, doesn't it?

Cheers,

James

[Scott Warren]

I thought about North Berwick James, but even Redan runs parallel to the sea, with a view of the water, doesn't it. Only #4 really qualifies in my book as taking you away from the sea.

[James Boon]

Scott,

Its a bit like I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot of holes on our classic links courses are near the sea, and may have an occasional view of the sea, but not all interact with the sea.

The Redan does run parallel with the coast but it has the 3rd hole between it and the coast, so I dont really remember any view of the sea being a major consideration on the tee, not like it is on say 10 or 11. Also, after the 14th green smack bang on the beach almost, I certainly remember it as more of a heading inland type hole even if its still close to the sea?

Cheers,

James

[Tony_Muldoon]

I conclude that Patrick is the only person who can completely divorce the surroundings from the architecture.

But should you completely divorce the surroundings from the architecture when the architect has intentionally used the surrounding?

No Andrew I don't think you should.
 Its easeir to make my point in reverse. When the surrondings change, so does our view of the course. A good example of this is the Skyline green and Pat has often spoken up as a fan of them. The best place for them is on a links course where the flat sea gives an infinite view behind.  However change the background and the Architecture is affected. Seaton Carew was built by MacKenzie in 1925 and over the years the industrial conmplex has developed around the course leading to Tom Doak's extrme reaction above.   As mentioned above Castle Stuart was carefully planned to make best use of the surrounding views.  Only Pat can ignore that and I do believe he does, however that 'blinker' like approach could be compared to attending a concert and listening to it on the latest headphones via high quality DAB feed-you may be able to  appreciate the quality of the playing but you don't get the full experience. Blinkers might be the better anology though.  I suspect that on the golf course he's more concerned with scoring well than seeing all that goes on. Still I imagine he'll have his own vierws on this.

[Sean_A]

Nice work James

This is from Tom Doak's (in)famous review of Seaton Carew  - a course by the sea and thought of quite highly by some on here.

"This might be a reasonably good links layout, but I was too chilled by the setting to even walk the course. It occupies the fringe of an industrial wasteland...and the menacing cooling-tower cones of the nearby supphuric acid plant were too reminicent of Three Mile Islabd for there to be any joy in golf here"

There have been a few similar threads about this and I conclude that Patrick is the only person who can completely divorce the surroundings from the architecture.  For normal humans it just can't be done .




To get back to the subject I surprised no one has mentioned North Berwick. Most people think of it as one of the best seaside experiences but that's really only true of 1,2,3 and the 17th green.  Thats the genius of the routing, get's the sea in your mind and it never quite leaves it.

Thanks Tony,

I can't believe no ones mentioned North Berwick yet, myself included, but I think you've missed the best of the bunch  After your blind approach to 14, its over the rise with the green down by the sea, what a setting! Then its back in land to a little known hole, called Redan or something like that...  So joking aside 15th, The Redan at North Berwick has to be one of the best holes to take us away from the sea, doesn't it?

Cheers,

James

James

Tony has missed out some back nine holes which are very seaside.  In any case, every hole at NB has a view of the sea so I don't think of NB as having any sort of great routing to take advantage of views.  What NB does brilliantly is take advantage of the landforms, walls and beach to make for what I think this is the best balanced course in terms of beauty, challenge, funk and leniency that I have ever played.   

Pat M

I don't think you and are in disagreement.  The only difference between us is where and how we accent the experience compared to the architecture.  I am quite happy to play a 2nd tier course in a great setting over a world class course in a so so setting.  The architecture still counts for a lot, but I need something more to play the game as often as I do.

Ciao