Saunton Helped me Realize Something Anew

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean's profile of Saunton East and West brought this to mind:

That architects for the last 80 years have simply been doing too darn much. They earn their livelihoods, to be sure, but are so concerned about putting and having 'architecture' everywhere that they forget about designing for the game -- a game that, for all our talk and all the technology, hasn't changed much at all in a hundred + years.

The objective has stayed the same; and the men and women who play it haven't changed either -- they are either competent golfers or they're hoping to become competent.  And on their journeys -- over one hole or a full 18, after one year or over the course of a lifetime -- they want to be challenged and compete and have fun.

Look at the pictures of Saunton: there is such a refreshing lack of "architecture' -- a slightly preferred/better line off the tee here; a small bunker or two protecting one side of the green there -- but more than enough to 'separate' the competent golfers from the not so competent, more than enough to require the good player to hit good shots and make good choices if he is to score well, and more than enough to challenge (while not discouraging) the beginner.  

The tigers will be tigers there, the rabbits can be rabbits (while not feeling that they are being condescended too).

The game hasn't changed, the people who play it haven't changed, the reasons we play haven't changed -- the only real change has been in the fields of play and in the architects who create those fields of play.  Somewhere along the way -- and in part with the best of intentions, and with best "ideals" (and ideal golf courses) as a goal -- golf course architecture, as a profession, lost its way.

I think the dark side of a place like gca.com is that we -- and before us, others like us -- may actually be encouraging this trend, encouraging architects to walk even further along that wrong road. We want 'architecture'; we judge and rank designers and their courses by how much architecture (of the "right kind", naturally) they make manifest.

Saunton reminded me that architects (and people like me) put too much emphasis on and expect to see much more 'architecture' than the game actually needs, or has ever needed.

We have gained much with the professionalization of golf course design, but Saunton reminded me that we also may have lost much -- a measure of innocence and simplicity and the joys inherent in both. Like the playwright once said: "man can now conquer the skies in airplanes; but he's lost his wonder at the birds, and the air smells of gasoline".

Peter

 

[Joe Bausch]

+1

[Garland Bayley]

+1

Play It Hole-by-hole

[Bill_McBride]

Peter, doesn't the GCA.com desire for "minimalism" lead to your preferred outcome?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Bill
I think a big GCA.com desire is for lots of fancy bunkers.

Thank you Peter
Cheers

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I have long believed the same thing - at least for rater types and folks on archie boards.  The expectations and desires of this lot, the need for archies to justify their fees (chase rankings?) and the concept of "championship" golf has led to a proliferation of designs which in one aspect or another (cost, time, fun, playability etc) has effectively failed to serve golfers very well.  While it is relatively easy to find the classic courses which tick all the boxes, finding moderns is more diffcult.  Its not often enough we hear about the Wild Horses and Common Grounds - owners, archies and golfers thoughts are more focused on the grand statement which will crack the top 100.  Its a never ending feeding frenzy.  While there is no doubt some knock out courses have been built under this approach, I am not convinced golfers would not be better off if a more moderate approach was taken.  But hey, its difficult to blame folks too much, as the one big difference today compared to 90 years ago is the proliferation of money.  Back then, money wasn't the driving force for so many designs whereas today it is rare for money not to be the driving force.  Once money became so important, expectations were raised.  So at least on that score Pietro, golf has changed.

Ciao

[James Boon]

Peter,

I agree with you to some extent and I think Bill is right that the minimalist approach does lead us your way.

What I find interesting is that its Saunton that has triggered this thought pattern? After several rounds there, and often in either a very strong wind or fowl weather, I wouldn't have said it was that simple from an architectural perspective? But perhaps my perception is that there is enough going on for the weather conditions I've played in???

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

Boony

I too was a bit surprised by Saunton as the choice for Pietro's revelation.  That is unless Pietro sees the designer taking what was given to him by mother nature and circumstances and using these features quite well.  We happened to meet Tucky (and I do mean happened - it was pure chance) at Saunton and he said The East was too hard for him.  I know the course is tight here and there and some of the greens are quite demanding and small, but we had perfect weather for golf; low 50s, cloudy and no wind.  I didn't score well, but I thought it was down to my incompetence, not the difficulty of the course.   To offer a comparison, I don't think Saunton is any more difficult than Burnham - so perhaps it is ott when the wind blows, but most "championship" courses are.     

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Peter,

I definitely see where you're coming from, but I'd probably say that its not hard to laud simplicity on a lovely, gently rolling piece of links land like that on which Saunton sits. Its a prime bit of Real Estate that I can't imagine needed much doing to it. Now take an uninspiring inland site or one that is totally unsuitable for building a golf course on and it's probably a different story. Would those who have played Yale suggest it's a good example of a course where significant invasive "architecture" was necessary to create an ideal playing field?

Cheers,
B.

No.  Lots going on in the land at Yale.

[Mark Pearce]

Brian,

I've been trying to think of a course where the land used needed "significant architecture" to achieve greatness.  I think, perhaps, this might be said about Muirfield.  It's not a bad bit of land and certain of the holes fit the land well and are, almost, "discovered" holes.  6, 7, 11, 12, 13 spring to mind, though all are, I think, improved by excellent bunkering.  However, many of the other holes are on flat-ish land and are made by significant architecture (1, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 18).

I wonder if this is part of the reason that Muirfield seems to split opinion on here more than almost any other UK course?

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

When I worked for Mr. Dye, even Pete [of all people!] lamented the new standard demanded by modern clients and golf magazines -- that every hole should be a postcard.  He got that from Pine Valley, which thirty years ago [pre-internet] used to sell a postcard set featuring each hole on the course ... a not so subtle reminder that it was the only course where every hole was worthy of a postcard.

That crazy standard is what most of our clients seem to ask for today, and what members of this Discussion Group seem to ask for, too, directly or indirectly.  Look at all the threads which feature multiple photos of each hole.  Look at the threads which compare courses in hole by hole match play.  And how many times have we had the argument about Pebble Beach being overrated, because there are a few duds in the mix there?

And you should have witnessed how hard a time I had convincing Mr. Keiser that we didn't have to jazz up the 12th hole at Pacific Dunes with more bunkers and more features!

There is no doubt you are right that most golf courses do not need such over-decoration, but as long as we are spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to build them, it ain't going to happen.  That's why I so love returning to the UK and playing all those lovely natural courses where they didn't feel obliged to break the bank.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Peter, for starting this thread.  Tremendous food for thought.

[Ben Stephens]

Peter:

When I worked for Mr. Dye, even Pete [of all people!] lamented the new standard demanded by modern clients and golf magazines -- that every hole should be a postcard.  He got that from Pine Valley, which thirty years ago [pre-internet] used to sell a postcard set featuring each hole on the course ... a not so subtle reminder that it was the only course where every hole was worthy of a postcard.

That crazy standard is what most of our clients seem to ask for today, and what members of this Discussion Group seem to ask for, too, directly or indirectly.  Look at all the threads which feature multiple photos of each hole.  Look at the threads which compare courses in hole by hole match play.  And how many times have we had the argument about Pebble Beach being overrated, because there are a few duds in the mix there?

And you should have witnessed how hard a time I had convincing Mr. Keiser that we didn't have to jazz up the 12th hole at Pacific Dunes with more bunkers and more features!

There is no doubt you are right that most golf courses do not need such over-decoration, but as long as we are spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to build them, it ain't going to happen.  That's why I so love returning to the UK and playing all those lovely natural courses where they didn't feel obliged to break the bank.

Nice one Tom!

I agree with your statements above - I actually tend to feel that American courses in general are 'overcooked' in terms of design elements which makes them to look artificial. Having travelled to America and Europe playing golf it definitely makes me more appreciative of the courses in the UK/Ireland which have evolved in a sustainable manner.

Cheers
Ben 

[Garland Bayley]

Peter, doesn't the GCA.com desire for "minimalism" lead to your preferred outcome?

How can 70 bunkers or so be minimalist?

Sean recently put St. Enodoc at #4 in his top 99. Perhaps St. Enodoc with great bunkerless holes should be the template for minimalist, not Bandon Resort.

[Giles Payne]

This is a really interesting topic. I agree totally that in going for more, we are ultimately ending up with less.  I heard a quote somewhere recently - “Perfection is achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away” – Antoine de Saint-Exupery

By following this path over bigger, longer, faster we are losing balance and subtlety - and this is not just in golf and golf course design.The importance of aesthetic balance is getting overtaken  - yes we can make things go further, faster etc - but if you take anything too far it becomes a characature.

[JMEvensky]

Peter,nice topic as usual.

I agree with your entire premise except for the "the people who play it haven't changed" part.I have no statistics to back me up,but my guess is that over the last 20-25 years there's been an influx of golfers for whom the added whistles and bells are the reason they gravitate to certain golf courses.Eyewash trumps everything else for this part of the market.

I don't think you can lay 100% of the blame on the architects.They just designed what the market wanted--or,at least,the most vocal part of the market.