[Patrick_Mucci]

micro features/holes on the course ?

Recently I had the chance to play some courses in Nevada.

I played with two terrific fellows who were nice golfers that live in Las Vegas.

One fellow, originally from Pittsburgh commented that "Desert/Mountain" golf left him without any feelings of "distinction.

As we discussed it, I stated that I thought that the mountains in the distance and the canyon walls bordering the holes tended to diminish or eliminate the character of the individual holes and features, that the backdrops/lateral framing made all of the holes similar despite their individual architectural features because the backdrops/lateral framing were so much larger, on such a grand scale that they overpowered the individual holes and features.

Has anyone else observed the same thing ?

Are desert/mountain courses all doomed to the same fate ? 

[Mac Plumart]

No way!

Desert golf is must-see golf.  If you get overwhelmed by the macro-features, your score will pay the price as the micro-features will bite you big time.  That is the charm.  Also, the courses I've played you've got to be accurate...playing off the rocky/sandy desert terrain/mountains is also hazardous to your scorecard.

Generally, the ball will travel farther as well.  Factor that in or miss green after green.

Great stuff for a change of pace.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mac,

You don't see an element of monotony, or similarity when every hole has mountains as a backdrop and desert or canyon walls flanking each hole ?

[Mac Plumart]

The following are the desert golf courses I've played...

Shadow Creek, Cascata, Paiute Wolf, Lake Las Vegas Southshore, Bears Best Las Vegas, Rio Secco, Indian Wells Players and Celebrity, Mission Hills Player, and The Classic Club. (Would you call Ballyneal a desert course?)

I mention this because maybe we are talking apple vs. oranges, but I at least liked most of the desert courses I've played


Of these the only ones I felt were montonous anb repetative were:

The Classic Club, Rio Secco and Bears Best Las Vegas

Although I think this is due to the design of the course rather than limitations of the terrain.

On the bulk of them, I really enjoyed the golf and thought the background and terrain added to the experience of the round.

To illustrate what I saw here are some pictures...


Cascata...





Indian Wells Players...





Paiute Wolf...





Shadow Creek (the best hole on the course IMO)...

[John Moore II]

Pat-I think the basic answer to your question is yes, they do dwarf the micro features. However, lets consider why this may be. Consider that the vast majority of the target audience don't recognize the micro features to start with. Now, that is not to say I give them a free pass and say that with a mountain backdrop it is ok to build a poorly designed course, however, to be of great appeal to the target audience, all that is needed is basic strategy coupled with the mountain backdrops.

Of course, there are some of the exceptional courses out there that have the micro features to go along with the macro features, but that is the same with Ocean front courses as well. How many of those have macro features that greatly overshadow the micro features of the course, to the point that in some cases there are barely any micro features to speak of?

[Mac Plumart]

John...

great point on the macro features of ocean courses.

[Carl Rogers]

You have to have the opposite perspective when playing development courses ... ignore the wall paper.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-I think the basic answer to your question is yes, they do dwarf the micro features. However, lets consider why this may be. Consider that the vast majority of the target audience don't recognize the micro features to start with. Now, that is not to say I give them a free pass and say that with a mountain backdrop it is ok to build a poorly designed course, however, to be of great appeal to the target audience, all that is needed is basic strategy coupled with the mountain backdrops.

Of course, there are some of the exceptional courses out there that have the micro features to go along with the macro features, but that is the same with Ocean front courses as well. How many of those have macro features that greatly overshadow the micro features of the course, to the point that in some cases there are barely any micro features to speak of?

I think there's a huge distinction because the ocean lies beneath the horizon line whereas the mountains lie well above it and as such are so much more visible from just about every location on the golf course, and as such, they're more overpowering as a backdrop feature.

In addition, the ocean doesn't flank every hole and serve as a backdrop as many of the desert/mountain courses rocky features do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You have to have the opposite perspective when playing development courses ... ignore the wall paper.

Carl,

I think that's good advice, but, how do you do that when the wall paper comes into play when it meets the fairway on every hole ?

[mike_beene]

but at Pebble Beach where the ocean is in constant view and meets the horizon it is a distraction from the course and makes it feel small.If there was an island ten miles out it would feel different.Plantation course as an example.

[Patrick_Mucci]

but at Pebble Beach where the ocean is in constant view and meets the horizon it is a distraction from the course and makes it feel small.If there was an island ten miles out it would feel different.Plantation course as an example.

Mike,

Pebble sits high up above the Pacific, and as such, the ocean lies beneath the horizon line.

At many desert/mountain courses the mountains lie well above the horizon line, making them far more noticable and in play far more than the Pacific at Pebble.

If you go to the photo gallery on the Cascata website and view the holes I think you'll get a better idea of what I'm refering to.

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

You have made it very clear in the past that features outside of the boundaries of the golf course - those outside of the architectural features deliberately crafted by the architect - are of no concern to you; they do not influence the architecture on the ground.  Only the tangible features of the golf course (and the wind) matter.  To that end, the mountains in the background are in no way relevant, and neither will they affect the design of the playing field, or the way you play your game.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39173.0/

Why the change of opinion? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

Your reading comprehension skills are failing you.

Please go back and reread my replies.

I indicated that the mountains come right down to the fairways and are an integral part of play.

[Thomas McQuillan]

Mac,

You don't see an element of monotony, or similarity when every hole has mountains as a backdrop and desert or canyon walls flanking each hole ?

Couldnt you say the same for links courses with either dunes or the sea in the background, or parkkland with trees?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mac,

You don't see an element of monotony, or similarity when every hole has mountains as a backdrop and desert or canyon walls flanking each hole ?

Couldnt you say the same for links courses with either dunes or the sea in the background, or parkkland with trees?

I don't think so with trees and parkland courses, but, I suppose a case could be made for dunes..

As I indicated earlier, the sea is BELOW the horizon line and as such, far less visible that features that rise up above the horizon line.

I would view the mountainous terrain that meets the fairway as far more onerous than dunes.
Balls bounce off the rocks and become lost or easily unplayable, balls hit in the dunes are usually findable and playable.

In addition, I'd imagine that the dunes wouldn't be similar or identical in look and feel, as the mountains are.
But, that could just be my perspective

[Steve Burrows]

With respect, Pat, should I read only your replies, or should I also read the TITLE of the thread, which makes an explicit reference to features "OFF THE COURSE?"  Your original post also makes mention of the"mountains in the distance."  Perhaps your comprehension should be questioned as well.

Second, the sea is not below the horizon: it IS the horizon.  

Third, how exactly are mountains any more "similar or identical in look and feel" than are dunes?  Whether in the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Himalayas, or a golf course in Nevada, each ridge and summit is quite distinct from the one next to it.  And mountains, as you may know, have a tendency to have names associated with them, which is a way of discreetly identifying them.  One rarely hears of a particular dune have such personality.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With respect, Pat, should I read only your replies, or should I also read the TITLE of the thread, which makes an explicit reference to features "OFF THE COURSE?"  Your original post also makes mention of the"mountains in the distance."  Perhaps your comprehension should be questioned as well.

Steve, if you had any reading comprehension skills you would have seen that the TITLE references features ON AND OFF THE COURSE.

Your deliberate attempt at editing the TITLE by intentionally leaving off two critical words is disengenuous at best.

Go back and reread the title, it says, ON AND OFF the course.

The text of the thread goes on to describe mountains in the distance and the canyon walls that border the golf course.

Second, the sea is not below the horizon: it IS the horizon.  
The SEA is below the horizon line.
Jump off a boat and tell me when people are looking at you if you are above or below the horizon line.
The sea sits below the golfer.
The mountain rise up above the golfer.

Third, how exactly are mountains any more "similar or identical in look and feel" than are dunes?

It's called SCALE
How many dunes do you know of that rise up 5,000 feet ?  

Whether in the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Himalayas, or a golf course in Nevada, each ridge and summit is quite distinct from the one next to it. 
That's absurd.
The scale of the mountains diminishes individual distincitons

And mountains, as you may know, have a tendency to have names associated with them, which is a way of discreetly identifying them.  One rarely hears of a particular dune have such personality.

Quite the contrary, Mountain RANGES tend to have names, not the individual rises and falls within that range unless one is so enormous and seperated from the others.

When playing golf in/around Las Vegas, the backround mountain range is monolithic, covering the horizon, and not individual features that just happen to be next to one another.

AS to the Himalayas, I haven't played any courses there, have you ?

[Mac Plumart]

Balls bounce off the rocks and become lost or easily unplayable, balls hit in the dunes are usually findable and playable.

Patrick...TRUE THAT!!!  That is the most frustrating part of desert golf.  That is why I said earlier that you need to be accurate when playing desert/mountain golf.  The altitude should take care of the distance IMO...but you must be wary of that extra distance.  I always bring a club I don't mind scratching up and ruining when I go to these courses because I know I am going to be hacking it out of the rocks on more than one occasion.

To your point about the views and the terrain being monotonous and perhaps not ideal, I'd agree.  But I think it comes down to a relative decision.  They are bad relative to what?  Pebble Beach, Pine Valley, Seminole, Royal Country Down...sure.  Relative to a neighborhood golf course with houses lining the fairways?  I'll take mountains. 

Anyway a few more shots of Cascata for people to see if they'd take homes or this or Pebble or mountains...

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
Living in a desert/mountain climate for the past few years, I've seen quite a few mountain and desert courses. I think after awhile it becomes difficult to generalize. The better mountain courses make use of varied terrain to create good variety both with the holes and the various backgrounds that are allotted to them. Sure some background views look similar, but you can say that about many flat parkland courses as well where the scenery doesn't really change over the course of a round. Other courses don't do this very well and you get the sense of playing the same hole repeatedly throughout the round. Often those courses don't do a very good job of emphasizing their internal features and you're left looking around at the scenery. I think most of the time that's still a function of the course more than that of the setting.

The bigger problem can be playability if the corridors between the canyons and desert features are not wide enough. One of my biggest frustrations with playing golf in the southwest is that poor drives are often lost entirely, whereas in the midwest they might be in another fairway or at least an area where you could attempt to recover. Again, some courses give more room than others in this respect.

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

As you mention, this thread does describe mountains in the distance AND the canyon walls that border the golf course (and an additional tangent about playability that has further muddled the thread).   But again, the title overtly and explicitly suggests more than this, as does your original post, as well as Post #2, in which you talk about mountains as “backdrop,” which you distinguish from the flanking nature of the mountains and canyon walls through the use of the word “and.”  So, whereas now you might want only to talk about one aspect of your original query, I would like to discuss another—those features that are OFF the golf course?  Is that fair, or allowable?

I am curious about this as you have in the past quite passionately defended the position the idea that elements OFF the course have no bearing on the architecture or the playing of the golf hole, per the link that I posted before.  Here, however, you posit the idea that features off the golf course now have a direct impact on the architecture, or at least the perception of the architecture, in the way that they tend to diminish the character of the on-course architectural features.  So I will ask one more time: why the change in opinion?  Did mountain golf provide you with an epiphany about the impact of borrowed scenery that other kinds off-property features could not do in the past? 

Please do not respond to this with a diatribe on playability, though you and others have brought it up.  Right now, I am asking you to please keep your response to me within the confines of the original post, which deals with visual framing and the potentially overpowering nature of borrowed scenery.  Does that sound reasonable? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

As you can see from the photos Mac posted, the backround tends to dominate the view/perspective of the hole.

Desert/Mountain golf seems to accentuate the concept of "target" golf because of the framing nature of the flanking features.

Mac's photos show that quite well.

Site selection would seem to be paramount, but, the dilema is..... cost.

The less desirable the site, the less expensive I'd imagine it would be.

With travel to a remote location not taking that long in LV, if I were a developer, I'd probably sacrifice distance for cost.
That being said, designing and building a course in the foothills/mountains has to be a far more difficult task, where design gets compromised by the macro features.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
Living in a desert/mountain climate for the past few years, I've seen quite a few mountain and desert courses. I think after awhile it becomes difficult to generalize. The better mountain courses make use of varied terrain to create good variety both with the holes and the various backgrounds that are allotted to them. Sure some background views look similar, but you can say that about many flat parkland courses as well where the scenery doesn't really change over the course of a round. Other courses don't do this very well and you get the sense of playing the same hole repeatedly throughout the round. Often those courses don't do a very good job of emphasizing their internal features and you're left looking around at the scenery. I think most of the time that's still a function of the course more than that of the setting.

Which courses do you feel do a good job of integrating the mountainous terrain bordering the holes, with the golf course ?

The mountain backdrops are all pretty impressive and in some cases overpowering of the individual holes.
What courses do a good job in integrating the mountainous backrounds

The bigger problem can be playability if the corridors between the canyons and desert features are not wide enough. One of my biggest frustrations with playing golf in the southwest is that poor drives are often lost entirely, whereas in the midwest they might be in another fairway or at least an area where you could attempt to recover. Again, some courses give more room than others in this respect.

Agreed.

Even holes with wide fairways often look narrow due to the enormous scale of the mountainous terrain bordering them.
This causes the golfer to be uneasy, unsure of himself as he stands on the tee, and, that anxiety is heighted due to the unplayablie nature, that you mentioned, of those flanking features

For 18 holes I felt that I needed to play defensively off the tee.
In many cases, when I got to the DZ, it was far wider than I had imagined on the tee, but, the huge  flanking mountainous terrain made the fairways look much smaller than they were.

I wonder if Steve Wynn/Fazio deliberately bermed the perimeter to try to avoid having the individual holes overpowered by the backdrops

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

As you mention, this thread does describe mountains in the distance AND the canyon walls that border the golf course (and an additional tangent about playability that has further muddled the thread).   But again, the title overtly and explicitly suggests more than this, as does your original post, as well as Post #2, in which you talk about mountains as “backdrop,” which you distinguish from the flanking nature of the mountains and canyon walls through the use of the word “and.”  So, whereas now you might want only to talk about one aspect of your original query, I would like to discuss another—those features that are OFF the golf course?  Is that fair, or allowable?

Fairness has nothing to do with it.
If you want to discuss other aspects, that's fine with me.

I am curious about this as you have in the past quite passionately defended the position the idea that elements OFF the course have no bearing on the architecture or the playing of the golf hole, per the link that I posted before. 

The mountains in the backround have no impact on the play of the hole.
It's the flanking mountainous terrain bordering the hole that are in play that have an substantive impact on play

Here, however, you posit the idea that features off the golf course now have a direct impact on the architecture, or at least the perception of the architecture, in the way that they tend to diminish the character of the on-course architectural features. 
So I will ask one more time: why the change in opinion? 

Did mountain golf provide you with an epiphany about the impact of borrowed scenery that other kinds off-property features could not do in the past? 

No, what it emphasized for me was how the enormous scale of features in play could influence the golfer's perception of the course and play of the course.  60 yard wide fairways look narrow when flanked by huge mountainous terrain

Please do not respond to this with a diatribe on playability, though you and others have brought it up.  Right now, I am asking you to please keep your response to me within the confines of the original post, which deals with visual framing and the potentially overpowering nature of borrowed scenery.  Does that sound reasonable? 

No, but, I'll try my best.

Here's what I said.

I stated that I thought that the mountains in the distance and the canyon walls bordering the holes tended to diminish or eliminate the character of the individual holes and features, that the backdrops/lateral framing made all of the holes similar despite their individual architectural features because the backdrops/lateral framing were so much larger, on such a grand scale that they overpowered the individual holes and features.

I also stated:

Even holes with wide fairways often look narrow due to the enormous scale of the mountainous terrain bordering them.
This causes the golfer to be uneasy, unsure of himself as he stands on the tee, and, that anxiety is heighted due to the unplayablie nature, that you mentioned, of those flanking features

For 18 holes I felt that I needed to play defensively off the tee.
In many cases, when I got to the DZ, it was far wider than I had imagined on the tee, but, the huge  flanking mountainous terrain made the fairways look much smaller than they were.

If you took away the huge flanking mountainous terrain, the holes, features and playability would be much more distinquished.

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
By my understand, Cascata is designed to showcase the views amongst other things, so I think that's a course that probably illustrates your point better than most.

I think one trait of courses that "blend" better are those that do not attempt to have the lush green look that contrasts so strongly with the desert/mountain backdrops. A couple that come to mind are Black Mesa, Rock Creek, Desert Mountain Outlaw and Renegade, and Apache Stronghold. Alternatively, courses at elevation with pine trees that block some of the vistas I think allow for more intimacy with the local enviroment and more focus on the golf course itself. Clear Creek Tahoe does this well from the photos I've seen (haven't played that one), as does Gozzer Ranch, Castle Pines, and Forest Highlands.

Jim Engh's design often accentuate the views, but the holes themselves are so bold that they draw focus back regardless of the scenery. I can remember every hole at Lakota Canyon from one play three years ago, for example. Ditto Black Rock although that one was more recent.  Paa-Ko Ridge and Ravenna have enough interesting holes that they fit the group, but they definitely have great focus on the mountainous scenery too.

No question that desert and mountain golf accentuates target golf--that's probably my least favorite thing about it. Even most of the better courses have somewhat of a target nature. The better ones at least allow the golfer to find the ball when they miss.

[Mac Plumart]

Andy...thanks...great post.  I especially like the lists you put out there as they are probably desert style courses we need to check out.

Thanks again!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()