The Architectural Continuum Of Terrain

[Sean_A]

All

Thanks for the replies.  I spose PP hit on what I was getting at with his "beginner's eye" comment and Jeff and Tom D went at it from the opposite end with the practical side of design and the aspect of archies carrying their baggage (experience) from project to project.  The reason I brought this thread up, and it isn't to denigrate Ian Andrew because I have never even met the man, was he comments on Pennard.


"Pennard is a golf course that makes me wonder if there can be too much quirk. There were a number of great holes like the 7th and 16th which featured some quirky features, that worked wonderfully because the holes were interesting to play, but also there was an opportunity to manage the more unusual features of the holes. But at Pennard, so many holes went beyond being quirky and in the case of a hole like the 17th  simply cross the line into bad design.

The setting for Pennard is spectacular and you must play this course just to see the incredible views and golfing terrain. This is one of the most interesting links sites that I have seen.

The problem is with the routing and architecture. There are too many blind tee shots, too many safety issues, too many places where the grade falls the opposite way of the dogleg, too many steep slopes that run any shot into trouble, too many holes where there is no place to play to. I look at a course like Porthcawl that has all of those features, but the holes were enough well designed to accommodate them. The course is also so well routed that the rest of the holes provide some balance to the round. I think you can have quirk, but it can’t all be quirky, because at a certain point it moves from charming to disappointing. With a great architect Pennard would have been a much better course."   


My immediate reaction to Ian's words were he wants to design out what makes Pennard, Pennard.  In many ways a flawed course (almost the definition of funky) and somewhat polarizing, but for all that still one heck of a lot fun and essentially a one-off.  Of course, Ian's opinions are his own and remain valid no matter how much I would disagree.  What really struck me was "With a great architect Pennard would have been a much better course."  Now, I admit to having read Ian's words on Porthcawl and thinking please don't wish to create another Porthcawl when Pennard has so much more character precisely because of the blind shots, reverse doglegs and severe slopes - characteristics which are dependent on the terrain.  In other words, the land truly dictated the design.  This is when I wondered if most archies would have treated this site like a 9 or 10 on the terrain scale when in truth its more like 6 or 7.  Of course, the site is wild, yet at no juncture is the golfer required to make an onerous climb or undertake long walks between greens and tees - thanks to what I think is a great routing.  To further this thought I remembered that on the now famous GCA (not officially sanctioned by GCA though!) Rankings Pennard came out quite high.  Not top 100, but quite close.  So it would seem despite its funky nature, Pennard seems to draw admiration and even respect from a decent percentage of GCAers. 

Once again, I am not trying to drag anybody through the nettles.  I am only interested in exploring the seeming difference of opinion between GCAers and archies on how sites should be treated and what that treatment (not forgetting my distaste for bunkers when I think other features could have done just as well) of that land may entail. 

Ciao 

[Tim Nugent]

Sean, I read what Ian said (and knowing him personally plus having read his sole-searching blog) I came away with his opinion being that the course design wasn't dicated BY the lay of the land but rather without taking it into account.  There is rather not so fine line between quirk and bad.  Too often, I read comments here where Bad is excused away with Quirk.  To me Quirk is out of the ordinary but...it works.  Bad is out of the ordinary but...doesn't work and ordinary is something that...just works.

I read lament in Ian's word.  It's almost as if I can hear him wishing that such a great opportunity wasn't squandered.  Because we archies have the ability to see "what could be" in our mind's eye, it's disheartening when we see what could have been...but isn't.

[BCrosby]

Like just last week, for example, I started swinging like Fuzzy Zoeller. (PS -- And made my first ever EAGLE!!!)     

Congrats on the eagle, but more interesting is the idea of swinging like Fuzzy. Do you address the ball with the neck of the club, smoke a pack a round and whistle?

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Interesting observations on Ian's comments, especially this:

"In many ways a flawed course (almost the definition of funky) and somewhat polarizing, but for all that still one heck of a lot fun and essentially a one-off."

My first thought is whether Ian, influenced by his experience and Owners is thinking, as I would, "its great that its a polarizing one of a kind experience that every one should play once in a lifetime, but can my owner justify building that kind of golf course?"

Even Mike Keiser and a few others probably wouldn't go out of their way to build that. Even Old Mac works but is quirky to the general public, but the holes follow good principles.

Just my thoughts.

[Sean_A]

Tim & Jeff

Of course there will always be differences of opinion about greatness and poor design.  That was the section of Ian's words which struck me most; the damning of a course and its designer because of its individuality.  The seeming inability to see Pennard for what it is rather for what it is not - and I suspect most archies would because of where they see they would "soften" the course in preference of interventional design and fairness. It dos surprise me, but it shouldn't if my notion is correct.  That is, that archies really look at land in a fundamentally different way than the keen amateur.  It may even go back to the Behr/Crane debates and the concept of "fair golf".  No matter its origin, I am convinced that most archies will honour this concept either knowingly or not.  This idea of fair is so deeply ingrained that in effect archies believe they can and must improve on nature because the game of golf demands it (and believe it or not mant little touches have been done to Pennard to make it less unruly).  The very odd thing is that it is ever so difficult to get into serious trouble at Pennard (a point completely over-looked by Ian) no matter the vagaries of the design except for in a few spots.  In the irony of ironies (and archies should pay attention to this), easily the most troubling hole from a design perspective is the 17th.  Yet, a great many punters point this hole out as their favourite of the bunch!  Now I can't say whether or not a course is truly great, but I am not sure if this sort of descriptor carries any meaning with the truly unique courses of the world.  Perhaps the GCA Fun Meter is a much more apt approach to use for courses of this ilk.  

Ciao  

[TEPaul]

"That is, that archies really look at land in a fundamentally different way than the keen amateur."


Sean Arble:

Of course they do. It's because they have experience with the various ways of altering terrain for golf holes as well as the other reasons to do so than just the actual playing of golf; that's something (that experience) amateurs don't have unless they happen to have spent enough time out on various sites and types of topography watching a fairly broad spectrum of architects with varying styles of architecture route and design up golf courses.

  

"It may even go back to the Behr/Crane debates and the concept of "fair golf"."




You're right, this very thing is pretty much at the heart of the Behr/Crane debate even if some on here can't seem to understand that such as Tom MacWood.



"No matter its origin, I am convinced that most archies will honour this concept either knowingly or not.  This idea of fair is so deeply ingrained that in effect archies believe they can and must improve on nature because the game of golf demands it (and believe it or not mant little touches have been done to Pennard to make it less unruly)."





That is pretty much the point of Bob Crosby's essay, "Joshua Crane," and particularly what he said about most all golfers intuitively wanting to make golf courses inherently fair like other games whose playing fields require a good deal of definition, limitation and various standardizations (such as generally level surfaces) simply to accommodate and make more efficent via space and time those other games for their human opponents who must vie for a common ball because those games require that, unlike golf.  

[George Pazin]

Tim & Jeff

Of course there will always be differences of opinion about greatness and poor design.  That was the section of Ian's words which struck me most; the damning of a course and its designer because of its individuality.  The seeming inability to see Pennard for what it is rather for what it is not - and I suspect most archies would because of where they see they would "soften" the course in preference of interventional design and fairness. It dos surprise me, but it shouldn't if my notion is correct.  That is, that archies really look at land in a fundamentally different way than the keen amateur.  It may even go back to the Behr/Crane debates and the concept of "fair golf".  No matter its origin, I am convinced that most archies will honour this concept either knowingly or not.  This idea of fair is so deeply ingrained that in effect archies believe they can and must improve on nature because the game of golf demands it (and believe it or not mant little touches have been done to Pennard to make it less unruly).  The very odd thing is that it is ever so difficult to get into serious trouble at Pennard (a point completely over-looked by Ian) no matter the vagaries of the design except for in a few spots.  In the irony of ironies (and archies should pay attention to this), easily the most troubling hole from a design perspective is the 17th.  Yet, a great many punters point this hole out as their favourite of the bunch!  Now I can't say whether or not a course is truly great, but I am not sure if this sort of descriptor carries any meaning with the truly unique courses of the world.  Perhaps the GCA Fun Meter is a much more apt approach to use for courses of this ilk.  

Ciao  

Amazing post.

[TEPaul]

"Amazing post."


George Pazin:

Why?

[Tim Nugent]

Sean, perhaps what you are struggling with is the fact that because you, personally favor a design style or course, it's hard to see why others don't also.  The biggest challenge in course design is how do you make it enjoyable and challenging for not only the vast arrray of skill levels but also incorporate all the ancillary aspects that reflect that in 99.99% of the cases, golf is also a business with a fairly expensive physical plant.  And to stay in business, one has to insure that the revenue derived must exceed the expenses.  The best insurance for this is produce a product that can appeal to the widest demographic.

If I were to distill a set of criteria that the GCA 1,500 could all subscribe to and build that course - would it be successful? Maybe - but, in doing so, I would have reduced the range of parameters.  Don't get me wrong, this is a blessing, not a curse, when designing.  But, unfortunately, most owners would rather you design for the masses, not the classes.  The bottom 1/3 of the golfing demographic prymid is so much larger that the top 2/3.  Casting a large net insures that you have the best chance of getting the most fish.

Is it ideal - hell no - just pragmatic.  Sure, we would love to be able to design in a vaccum but the world doesn't work that way.  Wish it did, but...

[TEPaul]

Tim Nugent:

That's a very realistic post.

However, the larger and more important question and issue, at least to me, is whether or not far more golfers can be lead somehow into appreciating golf and golf architecture that is just not so standardized in various ways as it has probably become. In other words, as a specific example, a return to some of the ways it once was long ago and certainly abroad.

I think this is one of the primary reasons Bob Crosby thought to write and was inspired to write his essay entitled "Joshua Crane." The fact is there were some incredibly fundamental issues to do with golf architecture but particularly golf itself that were addressed and explored in that fascinating Crane/Behr et al debate years ago that not enough paid enough attention to or considered carefully enough back then.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It occurs to me that there might be a whole lot of generality and that might affect anyone's thoughts.  Its not general, its hole by hole, not a general state of mind.  And, as Tim N points out, if the gca had to make too many of those decisions, it was either too tough a site for great golf, or a bad routing on great land and Ian seems to have gotten the general sense it was a case of one of those things.

When they started clearing the topo for the 13th at the Quarry (you can see the finished product in a recent thread link) there was some real wild topo, both natural and leftover from mining ops.  It looked great as was but was very, very steep in the fw area. In that case, there were no other real practical problems, and the Owner was a bit worried about the quirk, but willing to go with my judgement.

I noodled on keeping it as is. 

Then I asked myself if there was any strategy at all in a fw that rock and rolled everywhere. Of course, a few golfers could bang for the green and risk getting in the big bank (which was there) in front of the green.  Or, if they layed up short of that, no matter where they hit, they would face any number of lies, with about half of then involving picking a wedge of downhill terrain to an uphill green, not a real fun shot and one where the result was beyond their control, no matter how well they planned and executed their tee shot.

Or, with a little bit of work, I could create and upper and lower shelf, giving the golfers of all levels a choice of playing to the smaller upper pad, and seeing the green or playing to the wider lower pad and having an uphill blind shot from a rolling, but doable lie, both of which are a distinct disadvantage, but not a real penal one.

So, in that particular case, I found that working the contours (which were too steep for a fw) improved the golf at the expense of the terrain. I was very tempted to leave them as is,or soften them just a touch, but started considering the golf over the mantra of "using the natural terrain" and think I made the right decision, but it was a hard one.

So, the question to Sean or others is, would you have left that terrain in its quirky fashion, giving the golfers a fun look but perhaps a harder shot no matter what and no real options, or would you architect it up to give some strategy or choice?

(In the voice of Karl Malden....."What would you do?  WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"

[Sean_A]

It occurs to me that there might be a whole lot of generality and that might affect anyone's thoughts.  Its not general, its hole by hole, not a general state of mind.  And, as Tim N points out, if the gca had to make too many of those decisions, it was either too tough a site for great golf, or a bad routing on great land and Ian seems to have gotten the general sense it was a case of one of those things.

When they started clearing the topo for the 13th at the Quarry (you can see the finished product in a recent thread link) there was some real wild topo, both natural and leftover from mining ops.  It looked great as was but was very, very steep in the fw area. In that case, there were no other real practical problems, and the Owner was a bit worried about the quirk, but willing to go with my judgement.

I noodled on keeping it as is. 

Then I asked myself if there was any strategy at all in a fw that rock and rolled everywhere. Of course, a few golfers could bang for the green and risk getting in the big bank (which was there) in front of the green.  Or, if they layed up short of that, no matter where they hit, they would face any number of lies, with about half of then involving picking a wedge of downhill terrain to an uphill green, not a real fun shot and one where the result was beyond their control, no matter how well they planned and executed their tee shot.

Or, with a little bit of work, I could create and upper and lower shelf, giving the golfers of all levels a choice of playing to the smaller upper pad, and seeing the green or playing to the wider lower pad and having an uphill blind shot from a rolling, but doable lie, both of which are a distinct disadvantage, but not a real penal one.

So, in that particular case, I found that working the contours (which were too steep for a fw) improved the golf at the expense of the terrain. I was very tempted to leave them as is,or soften them just a touch, but started considering the golf over the mantra of "using the natural terrain" and think I made the right decision, but it was a hard one.

So, the question to Sean or others is, would you have left that terrain in its quirky fashion, giving the golfers a fun look but perhaps a harder shot no matter what and no real options, or would you architect it up to give some strategy or choice?

(In the voice of Karl Malden....."What would you do?  WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"

Jeff

My inclination would be to keep it as it was because not everything in architecture has to "improve the golf" - such a subjective term if I understand it correctly.  However, that decision would also depend a lot (throwing out all technical considerations for sake of argument) on the remainder of the course.  If there was already loads of funk I could easily be persuaded to soften that hole - it just depends.  To get back to Pennard's 17th as a relative example, I would certainly be in favour of softening the drive zone.  There is plenty of other funk about and I never liked the idea of a blind tee shot where it is very possible to lose a ball.  Of course the club did build a VERY clumsy little landing area in the middle of the fairway and it does help, but more needs to be done.  None of the other blind shots at Pennard can land the golfer in trouble with the relatively high probability of losing a ball because "I didn't know".   

Tim

A great many golfers appreciate Pennard and many other "non-standardized" courses.  These are not world beater courses in terms of rankings, but for golfers who actually pay to play golf it is clear there is a place for this sort of throw-back golf.  IMO, most archies are more conservative in design than the golfer would be willing to accept and that there are a whole host of reasons for this.

Ciao

[Tim Nugent]

Sean, what would that "whole host of reasons" be?
Unfortunately, here in the States, it seems that the players/members who blame their poor play on the design(er) are the loudest ones in the clubhouse.  And generally being architectualy challenged (from a knowledge standpoint) and having been brainwashed into believing 'golf should be fair!', they will pounce on anything that deviates from the norm.  In that respect, I submit one of those reasons would be Self-preservation.

Personally, I would rather have a course with quirks (as long as they are 'good' quirks (Prestwick, North Berwick) as they keep the golf intersting.  But others like it safe and predicitable.  And I feel I (and you) are in the minority.

As for Penard, I still feel that Ian just had a sense of a missed opportunity, that the course wasn't all it could be.  Granted, a host of players like it enough to keep the doors open but is that the sole criteria. Or do they come in spite of the quirk?  If a certain percentage of golfers didn't have a masochistic tendancy, would Pete Dye still be doing courses?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I am not familiar with Pennard (and you are not familiar with the Quarry) so this debate is somewhat pointless.  As we both say, "It depends". There is always a balance in my mind and depending on how that balance tips the scales in any given situation is how the hole should end up.  That many would come to different conclusions is one of the beauties of gca, no?

Did you think the Wings were jobbed by the Zebes last night?

[Sean_A]

Sean, what would that "whole host of reasons" be?
Unfortunately, here in the States, it seems that the players/members who blame their poor play on the design(er) are the loudest ones in the clubhouse.  And generally being architectualy challenged (from a knowledge standpoint) and having been brainwashed into believing 'golf should be fair!', they will pounce on anything that deviates from the norm.  In that respect, I submit one of those reasons would be Self-preservation.

Personally, I would rather have a course with quirks (as long as they are 'good' quirks (Prestwick, North Berwick) as they keep the golf intersting.  But others like it safe and predicitable.  And I feel I (and you) are in the minority.

As for Penard, I still feel that Ian just had a sense of a missed opportunity, that the course wasn't all it could be.  Granted, a host of players like it enough to keep the doors open but is that the sole criteria. Or do they come in spite of the quirk?  If a certain percentage of golfers didn't have a masochistic tendancy, would Pete Dye still be doing courses?

Tim

You just noted one, self-preservation.  All the reasons given for not liking this that and the other are really about self-preservation - and that is fair enough, but I would prefer not to hear stories about respecting the land etc etc.  My interest in this subject isn't about funk VS staid - there is a time and a place for both.  It is about using the land to construct courses.  If there is wild land about and a course with little input can be created which uses that land as its central focus yet offers short green to tee walks and no taxing climbs, why would an archie try to create something not akin to the property?  This is one reason why I think most archies pay lip service to the concept of the land dictating the design when they don't really mean that at all.  When i look at Fowler courses which can in no way be lumped into a descriptive category other than the land was the focus I wonder how many archies really embraced this concept.  I am guessing very, very few and from my perspective it is an awful shame if given a site as unique as Pennard.  I have always said that if Pennard was in the USA it would be ruined.  The course would be banged into a "fair test", sit next to a huge clubhouse with tariffs to match and a grand hotel which meets every need.  So yes, some could look at Pennard as a missed opportunity while others may take the view that Pennard has done it exactly right and that only luck saw this course built 100 years ago rather than today.  For me, it all gets back to the land and when that land is screaming funk the course should be funky.  Its not as if golf has too much funk that a very small percentage of funky courses can't be seen for what they offer even if they may be not necessarily good design as defined in today's terms.



Jeff

The Wings haven't had much luck with the refs, but so what?  If they score more goals and play BETTER DEFENSE no ref can alter the outcome.  In a word, the Wings dropped two games because they didn't deserve to win.

Ciao    

[Peter Pallotta]

That's a really good and clear post, Sean.  I wish I hadn't used the term 'beginner's mind' -- it seem to lead to debates about craft (engineering) vs art; and between the practical/popular vs the impractical/purist.  I don't think a beginner's mind means that one has to ignore the craft vs art distinction; more so that one maybe tries to transcend that distinction ...with fresh eyes as it were. A golf course, any golf course, isn't one of the ten commandments, and it isn't like a law of gravity. What a golf course "is" isn't a fixed and immutable idea/principle. It's a construct, usually within agreed-upon parameters and conventions. So maybe once in a while it's good to open oneself up to looking at the land/a site with eyes not clouded by traditional parameters and conventions.

Peter   

[George Pazin]

"Amazing post."


George Pazin:

Why?

Hi Tom -

Sorry I didn't have time to expand on this, but I don't really need to, given how Sean has further explained his position. I just feel there are a lot of deep conceptual issues Sean noted in the post I quoted.

This part in particular:

The very odd thing is that it is ever so difficult to get into serious trouble at Pennard (a point completely over-looked by Ian) no matter the vagaries of the design except for in a few spots.  In the irony of ironies (and archies should pay attention to this), easily the most troubling hole from a design perspective is the 17th.  Yet, a great many punters point this hole out as their favourite of the bunch!

strikes me as very simple and yet very deep thoughts.

[JESII]

So maybe once in a while it's good to open oneself up to looking at the land/a site with eyes not clouded by traditional parameters and conventions.

Peter   

I don't think we're as far apart as you might...and I think "The Beginner's Eye" is a very good term/concept in this discussion.

I went off-course with Bobby Jones because his is the only example I know of that ties the experienced veteran back to their beginnings in a craft...it probably happens in all activity.

The real debate seems to be starting with the beginners eye and working towards the practical or beginnig with the practical and trying to add in the creative.

My argument would suport starting with the beginners eye, but probably leads to more frustration on the part of the designer...