The problem with Obvious

[Niall C]

Tom, One of the negative aspects of obvious is that it doesn't allow the golfer to use their intuition. Counter, or otherwise.

There's few greater feelings than being able to predict what a designer has done, beyond what the eye can see, on their virgin trek, sans caddie. Also, having seen many pictures of totally blind shots on GB&I courses, with only aiming poles or rocks to assist the virgin, it strikes me as likely being a cultural difference. Would that be accurate?

Perhaps it is I who misunderstand but I took the above comment to be disparaging courses which fail to have surprise, hidden or blind features. Or at least to be commending courses which do require the first-time player to make a blind guess as to the proper place to hit the ball.

For my part I'm perfectly OK with a couple of blind shots during a round. For instance an "Alps" hole (if I'm using the right nomenclature) that has a ridge or similar feature immediately in front of the green, requiring the approach shot to by played blind. That's a great feature...after you've seen it before and know what's on the other side of the "Alps". But the first time it's totally a guessing game and that's not remotely as fun or challenging as hitting a blind shot by matching up your mental map of the green with the angle from which you're playing the shot. Likewise with that tee shot over a precipice on the back nine at Dornoch (can't recall the hole number). On second and third playing I love that hole but the first time you're just reducing to hitting it where ever the guys playing with you tell you to aim.

Surprises based on the first-time player's never having seen the target area before are lame. Sometimes perhaps unavoidable but still a detriment to the quality of the experience and my estimation of the course will consider that a bug and not a feature.

P.S. I'm not familiar with the features that you and Jim are discussing but the lamest of all is something that is a completely "obvious" feature yet hidden from the first-time player only. A blind guess first time, an absolutely no-brainer strategy every time after is not a commendable feature.

Brent

Perhaps slightly off topic with this thread but I note your comments on blind approach shots and I still remember the thrill of playing holes with a blind approach for the first time. Even blind tee shots can be fun but only if there is a marker post or some obvious feature which shows you the way. On a lot of the older courses over here that have blind holes generally you will find that the landing areas will be relatively wide or open to take into account the blindness of the hole.

Niall

[John Moore II]

Anyone who's ever played hundreds of rounds on an obvious layout can tell you that this ain't the recipe for greatness.  Imagine a course, Old Mac for instance, was to be your home club where you'd be playing 40+ rounds per year for the next 20 years.  In that light, taking a while to plumb it's depths becomes somewhat more tantalizing.

And that is very true. The last 3 courses that I have been fortunate enough to play a high number of times, I learned something new about the course every time I played. The same is not really true today for me. I am not a member of any club, so I play rounds at numerous clubs in the area. Obvious or otherwise, if the course is fun to play the first time, then I will probably return. That is the deal with the average golfer. Make it fun and they will return enough times to sustain the course. Members clubs are a totally different beast. I am not and have never been a private club member golfer, so I can't comment on that side of the business.

[Adam Clayman]

Obvious, as it relates to a decision to be made when confronting a nasty hazard, is a positive example of obvious. But, as Jud states above, the problem with an obvious formulaic design, where the strategy is as obvious as the balls on a tall dog, is it's inability to captivate, educate and inspire after 100's of round.

Brent, If I was disparaging any courses, it is the uninspired designs that the golfers of the world have been forced fed for too long, now, and one of the reasons why this website became so popular. 
Bob, Crosby's CC&P seems relevant to this discussion.

[JESII]

Adam,

I'll ask again...how are you examples from San Francisco and Ballyneal not "obvious" when you figured them out on the first try due to...at least at Ballyneal...prior experience on the architects courses.

[John Moore II]

Adam,

I'll ask again...how are you examples from San Francisco and Ballyneal not "obvious" when you figured them out on the first try due to...at least at Ballyneal...prior experience on the architects courses.

I can't really answer for Adam but I might suggest that being able to figure something out through thought and observation is not the same as being obvious.

[JESII]

To the thoughtful and observant player it is...

[Peter Pallotta]

I think that we here -- given our interests and the courses we tend to talk about -- are dancing on the head of a pin with this obvious-subtle distinction, and doing it because it seems an easy way to separate great courses from mediocre ones.  My earler question about a course being great if no one thinks so was meant to suggest that this distinction -- despite the support it has recieved by the great minds and practictioners of design/architecture -- doesn't really moves us forward in understanding/getting to the heart of great architecture and the criteria we use to determine greatness.  I can't offer an alternative approach, and if push came to shove I'd probably defer to the experts and the great architects old and new. But the only top 100 course I've ever played -- Crystal Downs -- didn't strike me as obvious. It didn't strike me as subtle, either. It didn't remind me of pictures of Sand Hills or TOC or Augusta or Garden City or NGLA (nor of Torrey Pines or Sawgrass or Wingfoot or Baltustrol).  What I remember about Crystal Downs is that it was a very enjoyable and always interesting journey, and a one of a kind course - its own unque self. So is Walton Heath, I think, and Merion, Ballyneal and Lehigh etc etc.  Sui generis, each one. Which now that I think of it might be a much more useful criteria for/element of greatness than subtlety, if even harder to define.

Peter

PS - Also, what Jim just said.      

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

Regarding your last post---when I see subjects like this getting discussed this way it always makes me think that Max Behr probably cast this kind of thing the best----eg it's all about emotion!

I don't know about you or others but when I've had some really good emotional vibes from various golf courses it doesn't seem that necessary to me to take all their parts and pieces apart to analyze them carefully to determine why the course had a great emotional impact on me.

Maybe I'm just dumb as a stump but I've always felt trying to analyze emotions too much just ends up sort of spoiling the feeling.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I've had long and fruitless discussions with Ran Morrissett about whether having a unique character is a key to a great course.

Ran, being a huge fan of Raynor/Macdonald courses, does not think it should matter.  Personally, it's what I get out of bed for every day, either to see a new course that has some unique quality about it, or to try and build one.

One of the ironies of Old Macdonald was in trying to give a unique character to a course where everyone thinks they know what to expect.  The nice part about the "subtlety" thread is that we seem to have done it ... most Macdonald and Raynor courses would not be described as subtle in any context, and those with prior experience on Macdonald/Raynor courses usually have a very good idea what they need to do from each tee.  But that would have been pretty boring to build, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

C.B. Macdonald was clearly very opposed to what he called the seeking after novelty and innovation with golf course architecture. He seemed to support that belief by suggesting that only tried and true and time-tested "classic" principles should be used in golf course architecture----whatever that means exactly.

I do admit, he may've been somewhat misunderstood on that in his time by other architects.

How do you feel about what Macdonald said and apparently strongly felt about that and how do you feel about the fact that some or perhaps many did not agree with him, or perhaps just misunderstood the details and nuances of what he was talking about and proposing?

[Jud_T]

Isn't this Obvious/Subtle question in fact why a firm and fast ground game is the best hazard?   That even after knowing a course intimately, playing off every little hump and hollow, particularly in breezy conditions, brings new possibilities and thus maintains one"s interest?  There are only so many times you can hit Driver down the tree-lined corridor followed by 5-iron over the pond to a predictable putting surface before you'd just as soon retire to the bar....

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Even if Macdonald treated the subject somewhat humorously, he did explain rather well what his use of classic and time-tested golf architectural principles meant when they were transported to a new land. Some of his critics or some of his questioners of his use of template holes and features and time-tested GCA principles explained and defined some of them as the "genius of locality." Apparently by that those questioners and critics assumed that something like the "genius of locality" was simply not tranportable or transferable for fairly obvious reasons.

Macdonald countered those criticisms about the supposed inability to transport or transfer the "genius of locality" by explaining it thusly:

"All very true when written, but how about to-morrow? The birth of a nation creates a new soul. As we gaze back we will reverence the past, but it is to the future we must look."

Perhaps seeing as Macdonald/Raynor architecture really has enjoyed quite the distinct renaissance and rejuvenation of popularity in the last ten to twenty years his remarks above about the "genius of locality" and the necessity to look to the future for their reverncing is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy on his part!

[Adam Clayman]

Adam,

I'll ask again...how are you examples from San Francisco and Ballyneal not "obvious" when you figured them out on the first try due to...at least at Ballyneal...prior experience on the architects courses.

Sully, On those successful attempts, I was able to get in the head of the architect. In Doak's case, it was the experience of Playing Apache Stronghold twice before, because, on my first visit I was completely unsuccessful at ascertaining that he was blinding me to the proper line.  At SFGC, it was my first time playing a Tillie and I took a chance that he would use the natural terrain on the 2nd hole. As matter of fact, just before taking the club back, I said to Dan King "Let's see how good this Tillie guy really is". I aimed left into the blindness, played a low cut, and watched my ball disappear, over the bunker, then reappear as it rolled along the green, staying on, as a result of the steep slope.

It was not obvious, it was both an intellectual and emotional process.

[Patrick_Mucci]

As a counterpart to the Old Macdonald thread, I thought I would explore the opposite position a little bit.

I don't believe that "dramatic" is the opposite to "subtle," as used in the other thread.  I would be the LAST to argue that scenic courses do not benefit from a bump in popularity and in ratings due to their beauty.  But, since we as architects only have a limited opportunity to make courses more beautiful, that's not worth a long discussion.

The point of the "subtlety" thread seems to be that golfers won't like a course that isn't "all right there in front of them," as the pros like to say, that they'll be lost and confused and not want to go back.

So, what are the examples of great courses that are extremely successful with that formula, once you take scenery out of the equation?  I am just not seeing them.  The best-known resort courses in America are Bandon, Pebble, and Pinehurst ... none of them got anywhere for being Obvious.

Tom Doak,

Doesn't the answer to your questions depend on the powers of observation and intelligence of the individual golfer ?

What you see in a golf course may not become readily discernable to the average golfer until he plays the course a dozen times.
And, even with unlimited repeat play, he may never see what you see.

There are also the issues of the Macro and Micro architecture.

The recognition of "subtleties" is often a function of one's GCA IQ.

The other fascinating aspect of this discussion and the subtlety discussion is the impact of the golf ball on one's learning curve.

I've seen golfers repeat the same mistake, over and over and over again.
And, I've seen other golfers vow to never repeat "that" mistake again.

I think it goes back to the golfer's powers of observation, GCA IQ and intelligence (inclusive of course management skills)

Dramatic holes seem to reveal their "obviousness" immediately.

A question to you and Jed.

Are there any par 3 holes that aren't basically obvious for first time play with the exception of the Redan ?   

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

If I think about it a while, I can probably come up with a handful of par-3 holes that aren't obvious.  [First I can think of is the 12th at Augusta ... no way it looks as scary to the first-timer as it really is.]  But, in general, I would agree with your premise -- and that's why I have always thought the people who gave great weight to the collection of par-3's in assessing a course were going about it all wrong.  Those are people who like the Obvious.

[Tom_Doak]

TomD:

Even if Macdonald treated the subject somewhat humorously, he did explain rather well what his use of classic and time-tested golf architectural principles meant when they were transported to a new land. Some of his critics or some of his questioners of his use of template holes and features and time-tested GCA principles explained and defined some of them as the "genius of locality." Apparently by that those questioners and critics assumed that something like the "genius of locality" was simply not tranportable or transferable for fairly obvious reasons.

Macdonald countered those criticisms about the supposed inability to transport or transfer the "genius of locality" by explaining it thusly:

"All very true when written, but how about to-morrow? The birth of a nation creates a new soul. As we gaze back we will reverence the past, but it is to the future we must look."

Perhaps seeing as Macdonald/Raynor architecture really has enjoyed quite the distinct renaissance and rejuvenation of popularity in the last ten to twenty years his remarks above about the "genius of locality" and the necessity to look to the future for their reverncing is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy on his part!

Tom P:  Certainly, Macdonald proved that a course full of those time-tested principles could take on a life of its own.  National certainly does.  Before it opened, a lot of people dismissed the concept of a "replica" course, but it clearly went beyond that and no one thinks of it in those terms today.  That's why I agreed to work on Old Macdonald, because I knew it was possible to get past if you had a great piece of ground to take the edge off the templates.

Every place has its own "genius of locality".  You are not going to steal the genius of North Berwick and plunk it down in Southampton or Oregon, but you CAN use the concept of the Redan and adapt it to the genius of a new place.

I was happy to do that this one time, but I still get more out of trying to find something new -- not the "novelty and innovation" which Macdonald correctly decried, but just trying to find a new location that has a genius of its own that Macdonald never had the opportunity to see.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Certainly, Macdonald proved that a course full of those time-tested principles could take on a life of its own.  National certainly does.  Before it opened, a lot of people dismissed the concept of a "replica" course, but it clearly went beyond that and no one thinks of it in those terms today.  That's why I agreed to work on Old Macdonald, because I knew it was possible to get past if you had a great piece of ground to take the edge off the templates.

Every place has its own "genius of locality".  You are not going to steal the genius of North Berwick and plunk it down in Southampton or Oregon, but you CAN use the concept of the Redan and adapt it to the genius of a new place.

I was happy to do that this one time, but I still get more out of trying to find something new -- not the "novelty and innovation" which Macdonald correctly decried, but just trying to find a new location that has a genius of its own that Macdonald never had the opportunity to see.

Tom Doak,

That's a very interesting and insightful comment.

It's going to lead me to start a new thread, thanks

[TEPaul]

TomD:


I think your #65 is a pretty good response to Macdonald's thoughts on novelty and innovation and his response to his critics and questioners thoughts on the "genius of locality" and to their potential transportablilty or transferability to somewhere else.

But to try to take the arguments or positions of both sides to their logical conclusions or perhaps full cycle, it seems to me one would first have to know in some farily specific detail what it was that Macdonald considered to be novelty and innovation in golf course architecture and in its virtual art form.

That may've been the aspect over which some may have misunderstood him and consequently disagreed with him. It does seem to me that some may've felt Macdonald was acting the part of the ultimate interpreter or trying to act that part of what-all constituted traditional and classical time-tested architectural principles and that perhaps he was also essentially suggesting they only existed abroad at the time of the creation of his NGLA-----despite the fact that he publicly crowed in his own support that some astute observers said some of his original holes at NGLA were the best on the course.

When one really does analyze some of the naturally given (unman-made) possibilities of the "genius of locality" one can fairly ask who is the producer of innovation and novelty----the architect himself or Nature itself with the architect only figuring out and determining their naturally novel and naturally provided innovative uses for golf?

[Brett_Morrissy]

If I am on the correct track, obvious to me is Melbourne's Sandbelt -generally most do not have ocean views, high cliffs or dunes, although some have some great elevation changes.

Much of the sandbelt, present 'obvious' lines off the tees, away from ball swallowing bunkering, with enough room for most handicapped golfers, particularly on first play, the subtlety becames quickly apparent, in the acres of fairway, there are many particular places to be in best position for the lines and plays into the tough and challenging pin positions, and avoiding further greenside hazards, and particularly Royal Melbourne and Kigston Heath's large, undulating and very subtle greens.

Brett

[Tom_Doak]

Brett:

Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath are obvious?  Now MacKenzie is turning over in his grave!


Tom P:

I agree with you that Macdonald's preference for classicism in golf course design is probably somewhat misunderstood.  I think it has to be understood in the context of his earliest courses, and what else existed in America at that time.  I think there is little doubt that he was a bit of a snob when it came to golf architecture, based on all the time he spent in Scotland.  [And so am I!]  But, it's clear if you look at his work that he was not just an advocate for repetition in golf course architecture.  There are plenty of holes at National that transcend mix-and-match architecture; and just the elevated tee on the 5th at Mid Ocean proves that Macdonald saw beyond the obvious.

As for your last paragraph, you'll get no argument from me.  That's why I prefer to work on interesting ground ... that's where great ideas usually come from.

[TEPaul]

"I agree with you that Macdonald's preference for classicism in golf course design is probably somewhat misunderstood.  I think it has to be understood in the context of his earliest courses, and what else existed in America at that time."


TomD:

Obviously Macdonald was not impressed with most all the existing architecture in America when he arrived at the idea of NGLA (around 1900), made his three trips abroad to study what he considered classical GCA principles over there, but are you also saying at that time you think he also realized his first three attempts at architecture when he was in Chicago in the 1890s weren't much good either?  

[Tom_Doak]

are you also saying at that time you think he also realized his first three attempts at architecture when he was in Chicago in the 1890s weren't much good either? 

Tom:

That wasn't really what I was trying to say, but, yes, I think Macdonald felt that his turn-of-the-century attempts in Chicago were not everything he wanted them to be.

[Jason Topp]

If "obvious" means that one can observe and understand the options the holes present at first sight I think many very good to great courses are obvious.  If it means that the correct choice for the player that day is obvious then I do not think many, if any great courses are "obvious."


Some "great" courses that seemed pretty obvious under the first definition:

Harbour Town
The Ocean Course
Pebble Beach
TPC Sawgrass

I would also argue Tobacco Road fits this definition.   Many shots are blind but I thought they were very well defined off the tee, particularly with a yardage book.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Tom D (& Jason):

As I began, I wasn't sure if I was on the right track for the comment - but Jason has followed up with how I would have liked to clarified it.

If "obvious" means that one can observe and understand the options the holes present at first sight I think many very good to great courses are obvious.  If it means that the correct choice for the player that day is obvious then I do not think many, if any great courses are "obvious."

I meant that RM & KH appear safe & and obvious with their lines off the tee, trouble appears obvious, alas/thankfully the true nature of the hole, its many lines of play, and all it's glorious subtlety are not obvious and are revealed after much closer inspection - particularly to the majority of golfers, the trained eye, and even some eyes that are still learning

Brett

[Ulrich Mayring]

I wanted to write that no one has yet defined "obvious" to my satisfaction. In my eyes it doesn't mean alternate fairways, just one way to play the hole or any other concrete feature. Well, I wanted to write that, until I read Jason Topp's reply #72, which I think sums up my definition of "obvious" very well. I'll paraphrase Jason:

"Obvious" means that any option is spelled out clearly - by way of a hazard, a mowing line, undulations in the ground or even (gasp!) a diagram on the tee box. Whatever means are employed (and some of them are probably better than others), but there is a conscious effort to show instead of to conceal.

I know that Alister MacKenzie was pretty big on camouflage, but I don't think he ever made a conscious effort to conceal something just for the sake of non-obviousness. I believe he concealed largely because of aesthetics, not because he thought it would make the hole more interesting to play. Any disagreement from someone more familiar with MacKenzie than I am?

Ulrich