[Greg Tallman]

Eye Candy -  Informal
Someone or something that is visually attractive or pleasing to look at.

Yes I find RCD attractive to look at.

Mike,

If you are from the UK, I'll accept your answer    
If you are from the US...here is what it means:

Definitions of eye candy on the Web:

Visual images that are pleasing to see but are intellectually undemanding; "he wanted to put some eye candy on their web site"

Something on-screen that is meant to be looked at and ogled, but rarely has anything to do with the development of the story.

A graphic element that is used for design purposes and does not reinforce any content.

So how is it you seem to consider as eye candy a naturally occurring hazard that is in play and certainly factors into how you will play the hole? Honest question.

[Tom_Doak]

Anyone who thinks visual appeal on a golf course is worthless, does not understand the variety of reasons which attract people to golf.  It is NOT all about "shot values" [whatever they are] for most people.

The bunkers at Muirfield, St. Andrews, and Royal County Down are all beautiful in their own way, and elevate those courses above others where the bunkering is less well done artistically.  It is not all just about wispy long grass.  Nor is it all about ocean views, but ocean views seldom hurt a course in anyone's mind, either.

[Matt MacIver]

Whistling Straits has plenty of eye candy.  Two friends and my father all wanted to see WS after the first PGA?  But now after this year's Major both my father and one of the two friends decided that WS was too hard (1000+ bunkers?; long carrys?) and wanted to hear more about this Bandon place I've preached about for a few years...and now really: FOUR decent courses? 

So eye candy carries A TON of clout with the every day golfer, and as importantly, once-a-few-years-vacationer. 

[Greg Tallman]

Anyone who thinks visual appeal on a golf course is worthless, does not understand the variety of reasons which attract people to golf.  It is NOT all about "shot values" [whatever they are] for most people.

The bunkers at Muirfield, St. Andrews, and Royal County Down are all beautiful in their own way, and elevate those courses above others where the bunkering is less well done artistically.  It is not all just about wispy long grass.  Nor is it all about ocean views, but ocean views seldom hurt a course in anyone's mind, either.

So Tom, when all of your strategy is worked out and you encounter an opportunity to INSERT some eye candy that will look cool but mean little to the design in reality do you give in?

[Mike Cirba]

My friend Bill Vostinak calls it "bunker porn", which I think is a better description.

I know it when I see it, and I admit I'm not only a lurker, but an avid aficionado.

So, call me a perverted slut...see if I care. 

Honestly, I do think we are all a tad too affixed to bunkers of the ragged edge sort, and over time I've become a bit of a zero-sum guy who is more apt to ask why a bunker exists than to just accept it as beauty being its own reason for being.

I think I'm becoming an Arble-ite in that respect, which gives me a better appreciation of how well any architect used the natural conditions at his disposal, rather than masking it with the handiwork of his own creation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gary & Greg,

I think, to characterize something as eye candy, there has to be a disconnect with the surrounds.

That's not the case at Hidden Creek where the high grass flanks every hole.

If it didn't and it just appeared at the perimeter of the bunkers, then, yes, I'd agree with you.
But, it doesn't.

When you play Hidden Creek your vision isn't confined to the direction and target of the lens, you see everthing, the pine woods, tall fescue grasses, fairways, greens, bunkers, etc., etc.. and they're all in harmony, there is no disconnect.

I've always maintained that what's inside the property line is the only thing the architect can influence.

He can't change the color of the Ocean or create waves on a pond or lake.
He can only create and orient the features within the boundaries of the property.
If he wants to orient a hole to provide a view of a desirable external feature, or avoid the view of an ugly one, his work must be done internally.

One of the most interesting studies this group could embark upon would be to see how Flynn and Ross routed the same property at CC of York.  To see how they used the topography, internal and external features.

CC of York as a lab rat proves one thing, that most sites aren't constrained to just one routing, one golf course.

I'd also love to study Friar's Head and the routings provided by architects other than C&C to see how they envisioned the golf course.

Some have been very critical of Pacific Dunes, especially the back nine with four (4) par 3's and three (3) par 5's, leaving only two (2) par 4's.

I'd like to see what alternate routings they could have come up with and how they would compare to the existing golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Anyone who thinks visual appeal on a golf course is worthless, does not understand the variety of reasons which attract people to golf.  It is NOT all about "shot values" [whatever they are] for most people.

The bunkers at Muirfield, St. Andrews, and Royal County Down are all beautiful in their own way, and elevate those courses above others where the bunkering is less well done artistically.  It is not all just about wispy long grass.  Nor is it all about ocean views, but ocean views seldom hurt a course in anyone's mind, either.

So Tom, when all of your strategy is worked out and you encounter an opportunity to INSERT some eye candy that will look cool but mean little to the design in reality do you give in?

Greg:

"Strategy" is overrated, and in many cases, overcooked.  The last co-designer I worked with added about 40 bunkers to improve the "strategy" of the course and most of them just make it harder for the average guy, not necessarily better.  Nearly any bunker has an effect on how SOMEONE or other plays the hole.  Not every bunker we place is equal in terms of strategic value, but we rarely place one just for the visual effect alone.

But the laws of aesthetics do not dictate that more bunkers = better aesthetics.  Indeed, at some point the opposite is true. 

Nor is aesthetics all about bunkers or ocean views; that is only how it is applied here by people who don't know any better.

P.S.  I spent four days on a construction site this week, working on five new holes.  I added a couple of bunkers to save potential lost balls down a steep bank, and I added a couple to keep players honest from bailing out to the relatively undefended side of a green.  On one of the five holes, we will build way more bunkers than are strategically necessary in order to make an abrupt slope look really menacing and increase the scale of the hole; but since the site is all sand and those bunkers won't require much maintenance, I don't know why anyone would worry about them too much.

[Jack_Marr]

It looks wonderful. I wish we had such eye candy on Ireland's parkland courses, but there's little here combining such charm with good architecture, on our inland courses, that is. Eye candy is perfectly fine on a golf course, and it doesn't rot your teeth.

John

[Carl Rogers]

Royal Country Down, Hidden Creek...pish posh...

Now this is eye candy, straight from the Great State of Georgia!!!!

Nothing like some BEAUTIFUL housing surrounding a par 3!!!

Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

You really need warnings before posting such atrocious, graphic images.

But, back to the initial thread.  To me, Visual appeal is a significant aspect of the Golf experience, so I have no problem with the addition of visual elements.  Ultimately, most people's perception has little to do with the visual elements themselves.  The rest of the architecture will determine if it's a wonderful "supplement" an attempt to "disguise" mediocrity.

I don't have the same negative reaction that most do to Whistling Straits, because I believe the design holds up and is complimented by the visual effect, but that's just my opinion.

This is an example of where some small amount of additional shrubbery and trees in the background and even some subtle mounding would soften and enhance this hole.

[Carl Rogers]

Anyone who thinks visual appeal on a golf course is worthless, does not understand the variety of reasons which attract people to golf.  It is NOT all about "shot values" [whatever they are] for most people.

The ...

Tom & Group,
On another thread, I have gotten into a discussion with another frequent poster, Mr. Moore, about the relative merits of Nansemond River GC and Riverfront.  We have agreed to disagree which is fine.  My point in comparing the two courses is looking very hard at what the GCA could actually control.  IMO, if you took away the river view, Nansemond River GC would just about lose ALL of its appeal.  I, even after all these years, have new golfing experiences and perceptions at Riverfront.

[Gary Slatter]

Gary & Greg,

I think, to characterize something as eye candy, there has to be a disconnect with the surrounds.

That's not the case at Hidden Creek where the high grass flanks every hole.

If it didn't and it just appeared at the perimeter of the bunkers, then, yes, I'd agree with you.
But, it doesn't.

When you play Hidden Creek your vision isn't confined to the direction and target of the lens, you see everthing, the pine woods, tall fescue grasses, fairways, greens, bunkers, etc., etc.. and they're all in harmony, there is no disconnect.

I've always maintained that what's inside the property line is the only thing the architect can influence.

He can't change the color of the Ocean or create waves on a pond or lake.
He can only create and orient the features within the boundaries of the property.
If he wants to orient a hole to provide a view of a desirable external feature, or avoid the view of an ugly one, his work must be done internally.

One of the most interesting studies this group could embark upon would be to see how Flynn and Ross routed the same property at CC of York.  To see how they used the topography, internal and external features.

CC of York as a lab rat proves one thing, that most sites aren't constrained to just one routing, one golf course.

I'd also love to study Friar's Head and the routings provided by architects other than C&C to see how they envisioned the golf course.

Some have been very critical of Pacific Dunes, especially the back nine with four (4) par 3's and three (3) par 5's, leaving only two (2) par 4's.

I'd like to see what alternate routings they could have come up with and how they would compare to the existing golf course.

Thanks for the info Pat.  My concern with "eye candy" is more from the operational side, both Greg and I operate facilities.  When I look at that spectacular photo of Hidden Creek the first thing I saw, after the two deer, was the tall grass strip between the bunker and the edge of the green.  Very pretty, but pretty difficult to play in, and to maintain.  I love the tall fescue to the sides of the hole, but not so close to the green.
In days gone by players played the course and wherever their ball ended up, they played it.  The modern club golfer has no chance getting out of that stuff and when it is so close to where a "good" shot would have landed, they are right to complain.  But often isn't it the super who will add the special effects (eye candy)?

[MikeJones]

A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be focussing on what the term 'Eye Candy' means. It's obviously open to different views on what it does mean. Is a bunker any different because you call it a sand hazard, trap or...bunker? It's the same bit of ground so what difference does a name make?

If something sticks out like a sore thumb like if someone were to place a RCD style bunker in the middle of the 18th fairway at Augusta, it wouldn't be 'eye candy' it would be stupid. Likewise if people try and fit a general style of bunker into a course where it doesn't fit with the natural suroundings it would be a folly. The hidden creek bunkers seem to fit their surroundings and effect play on the course and there's nothing wrong with that is there?

[Tim Martin]

I have to agree with Gary Slatter in that to have that fescue grass surrounding green side bunkers seems overly penal. Forget about how natural it is to the sight and surroundings. You should have a play so close to the green. We are not talking about a fairway bunker or a bunker 30 yards off the fairway and or green surrounds like Whistling Straits. The picture of Hidden Creek looks  amazing with the native grasses but is nothing but eye candy around the green side bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

That was a weird turn of events; first someone was saying bunkers were eye candy because they weren't strategic, now you are saying these are eye candy because the long grass on the faces makes them too difficult?

[MikeJones]

You should have a play so close to the green.

You've obviously not played much golf on links courses Tim  

[Bill Brightly]

I admit to being a little slow sometimes...and I just can't tell if Greg, the general manager of the perfectly quaffed Cabo Del Sol Ocean Course, is having a little fun with C & C's work or he really thinks the few strips of fescue on a course located in the New Jersey pine barrens is excessive. Please help me out.

Ran's picture of Hidden Creek



Cabo Ocean Course



Personally, I think both courses are beautiful, but if Hidden Creek has eye candy...

[Tim Martin]

Tom D. - I think of eye candy as something that has an aesthetic quality but is probably not necessary or beneficial. When I look at the native grass in the picture around the bunker at RCD it looks like you can probably advance the ball. I have not played Hidden Creek but I don`t get the same feeling when looking at the pictures of the native grass around their green side bunkers. The grass looks much more natural in the shot at RCD versus manufactured as quoted by Gary Slatter in reply # 23.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim,

I will give you that the bunkers at Royal County Down look more natural, but they do not make it easy to advance the ball, whether you're in the sand or the marram and heather which surround them.  I have not played Hidden Creek for comparison but I doubt it is more severe.

Your distinction of whether this long grass is "necessary" is funny, though.  Nothing on a golf course is necessary other than a 4 1/4 inch hole.  All the rest is subjective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim:

That was a weird turn of events; first someone was saying bunkers were eye candy because they weren't strategic, now you are saying these are eye candy because the long grass on the faces makes them too difficult?


Tim,

Those bunker faces are so steep, the grass so whispy, and the trajectory of the ball off the tee so steep from the elevated tee that it's almost impossible for a ball to come to rest in that grass, so  the impact on play is almost non-existant.

[Mike Hendren]

"Strategy" is overrated, and in many cases, overcooked.  

Agree 100% and it's refreshing to hear this from one of today's premier architects.  

Tom, we were stuck behind a girl's high school match at Holston Hills yesterday.  While the restored fairway bunker locations are
often out of sync with today's tigers, you would have delighted in how these young ladies tacked their way around them, realizing that with their pretty but lazy swings to land in one was absolute jail.  The smarter of the two players used the entire golf course to her advantage.   I must admit it's the first time in years I've seen a golfer approach a course strategically - and I've played with more than a few members of this treehouse in that time.  

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thanks for the info Pat.  My concern with "eye candy" is more from the operational side, both Greg and I operate facilities.  When I look at that spectacular photo of Hidden Creek the first thing I saw, after the two deer, was the tall grass strip between the bunker and the edge of the green.  Very pretty, but pretty difficult to play in, and to maintain.  I love the tall fescue to the sides of the hole, but not so close to the green.
In days gone by players played the course and wherever their ball ended up, they played it.  The modern club golfer has no chance getting out of that stuff and when it is so close to where a "good" shot would have landed, they are right to complain.  But often isn't it the super who will add the special effects (eye candy)?

Gary,

I understand Greg's and your concern from a maintainance point of view, they're certainly valid concerns.
If a feature drives the "cost to maintain" beyond reason, one has to question the existance of the feature.

But, in this case, those greenside bunkers are so steep, the grass so whispy and the trajectory of a 180 to 220 yard shot from a highly elevated tee so steep that the probability of a ball coming to rest in them is beyond remote.

If "Scotch Broom" was introduced INTO the bunkers, then Id perceive that as "eye candy", but the rough edges, stystemic throughout the entire golf course are an integral part of the design and not an inordinate burden to the golfer.

[Greg Tallman]

I admit to being a little slow sometimes...and I just can't tell if Greg, the general manager of the perfectly quaffed Cabo Del Sol Ocean Course, is having a little fun with C & C's work or he really thinks the few strips of fescue on a course located in the New Jersey pine barrens is excessive. Please help me out.

Ran's picture of Hidden Creek



Cabo Ocean Course



Personally, I think both courses are beautiful, but if Hidden Creek has eye candy...

Just posing an honest question - do others consider it to what amounts to an unnecessary addition done for nothing more than visual effect? I am not saying it does not look wonderful, it does. I am not saying I dislike it, I love it. I am just playing devil's advocate for those that bash everything that is not done by a rather select group of designers and use terms such as eye candy in doing so.

Aren't discussion groups great?

[Tim Martin]

Pat Mucci-Thank you for your explanation regarding the the odds of a ball landing in the aforementioned native grass.

[B. Mogg]

Nothing on a golf course is necessary other than a 4 1/4 inch hole.  All the rest is subjective.

great line!

[Wade Schueneman]

The whiskers on the bunkers at RCD are an important strategic element in my view.  I took an XXX on number 4 after my tee shot plugged into the tall stuff gowing out of the face of on one one of those bunkers.  I could not advance the ball forward (and believe me I tried) so I had to whack my ball back into the bunker.  My attempt to extricate myself from the bunker failed when my ball hit some of really firm tall grass and fell essentially back where I had begun.  Next shot backward into the bunker. Next shot backward out of the bunker.  Next shot on the green.  I am guessing no one really wants to know if I made the putt!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()