[Connor Dougherty]

This was the statement Landscape Architecture professor Ron Lovinger made in my first lecture from him this term. He used this to compare the grid (city blocks) to the serpentine (nature) His statement was meant to apply to land planning, but I feel this is an interesting topic in GCA. How do the appearances of rugged, natural looking golf courses (Pasatiempo, Bandon, Sand Hills, etc.) compare to those that have geometrical hazards (Sleepy Hollow, Blue Mound, Camargo, etc.)? How does this affect routings? I think of what Tom Doak once said in an interview about the 12th hole at TOC, where he said that the options off the tee used to paralyze golfers with fear. Most of us on here embrace the "chaos" that is created on holes like the 12th, but is this one of the reasons we see less of these kinds of holes?

A lot of topics can be covered under the original statement made at the top and I'd like to hear all of your thoughts.

I'd also like to take this chance to introduce myself. My name is Connor Dougherty. I'm a student at the University of Oregon and am from the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm hoping to be a golf course architect. It's an honor to be able to participate in these discussions and if I'm lucky, I'll to be able to apply what I learn hear to courses I may design/work on in the future.

[Mac Plumart]

Connor...

I think you have hit on the most interesting topic in the world, not just the world of golf course architecture.  Why do humans do what they do?  Why do they like what they like? 

I'll say this...humans have been long conditioned to run with the herd and follow the pack.  And change is unsettling.



This could be a great discussion.

[David_Tepper]

"I'll say this...humans have been long conditioned to run with the herd and follow the pack.  And change is unsettling."

Mac -

Couldn't you say that about almost all animals?

DT

[Peter Pallotta]

Hi Conner - first off, welcome, and all the best in your studies.

Yours is a terrific question, in part because the discussion can go in so many different ways. Here's just one:

I think that for anything that exists there is an idea, even a meaning, that underlies it. And if we are planning to create something -- a city, for example, or a golf course -- we need to explore and decide upon what we believe is the underlying idea and meaning of that thing. A city, to me, is the idea of community and social engagement and diversity in unity and of mutual benefit (economically, culturally, spiritually) -- and because I believe that, I think of New York City, with its packed in style (stores and businesses and residences and galleries and theatres and churches and hospitals etc all one on top of the other) and easily walkable grid-pattern as a better city, a more ideal city, than say, Dallas or Atlanta (as lovely and interesting as those places are). New York manifests, for me, the meaning of a city better than any other one in North America. So, yes, in terms of a city I want 'grids" or "order". But when i think about a golf course, the idea and purpose and meaning of a golf course for me -- a part of nature and of the natural world that has been selected and/or refined such that, with as little intervention as possible, it becomes suited to act as a field of play for a game that has its roots in the ragged/disordered and wind swept link lands of Scotland, and a game that has an ethos and a spirit shaped by this very naturalness, e.g. the bad/unlucky bounce, the play it as it lies, the fact that we play the course and not the opponent, never vying for the ball, the changeability of wind etc etc. And so, for a golf course, I think its meaning is best manifested when the seeming randomness of nature is the dominant impression/theme.

Please excuse the ramble, I hope you find a point in there someplace!

Peter

[Sven Nilsen]

Landscape architecture, like most things, has a history of styles, and those styles have been replicated, adapted and reincorporated throughout the years.  A great comparison of the dichotomy in design principles can be found on the grounds of Versailles.  The majority of the gardens were built in a very formal style, man controlling nature, or creating order.  Contrast these areas with the Queen's English Garden which, while still a controlled environment, is designed to replicate the chaos of nature.

Golf courses have a similar history in contrasting styles, with the notation that the first courses were not controlled environments.  Man played the links because they came pre-packaged, with ideal turf and contours for the game. 

Fast-forward to today, and the trend appears to be to produce courses more like the Queen's Garden than the straight-lined, hedge-rowed corridors and mirror-glassed pools of the formal section of the grounds. 

[Mac Plumart]

Question...

If someone grew up playing parkland style courses, would they find links golf courses odd and frustrating?

I think so...see Bobby Jones, Sam Snead (I think it was him), and many others.

I also think the inverse is true.

People gravitate towards what they are comfortable with.

I also think the Behr/Crane debates strike at the core of this as well.  Fair vs. rub of the green.  When and where does the light bulb switch on to Peter's thoughts...which, to me, embodies the true spirit of the game.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think this topic hits at the core of the gulf between the vast majority of us GCA aficionados and many other golfers. It seems that quirk--which we value much, much more highly than most--is a manifestation of disorder in golf course architecture.

Lots and lots of golfers like Robert Trent Jones, Rees Jones, Tom Fazio courses because they don't tend to grate against a perceived sense of "how a course should be," which is a perspective on order. You can hit a good shot and see wehere your ball finishes on most of these men's golf courses. The same is not always--or even often, sometimes--true of courses by the architects, old and new, that get the most love from us.

So, GCAers, congratulations: we are more enlightened than most! That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

Indcidentally, Connor, you've partially explained the Ducks' success in football of late. Their super-hurry-up offense and the funny symbol arrays Chip Kelly's staff holds up on the sidelines is all in service to a sense of chaos that must keep most opponents off-balance. It's gamesmanship. Diversion from the sense of order that occupies the sensibilities of many golfers is tantamount to gamesmanship on the architect's part. The architect plays God and treats the player like Job. Most golfers don't want to be Job; they'd rather be Jesus.

[Colin Macqueen]

Connor,

Welcome to GCA and what a statement/question to get off first base with!
"Humans crave order?"

It as got me thinking about how can I love and enjoy the game so much. On the one hand I am the quintessential pigeon-holer leading to calm whilst on the other hand my golf game is ofttimes disorderly and random which leads to anxieties!

The "chaos" of the Old Course (which I haven't played but have observed many a time) would seem to be my worst nightmare. Where should I hit? Where has it gone? Where will it reside? Another blind shot! A lost ball! Can you imagine the angst?
So architects and golf course architecture can really get inside my head.

But but........ at the same time I relish the game. The unknown may give me palpitations but the palpable relief of seeing my golf ball safe and sound balances the dread. There is a piquancy to it. The feeling, when, in an orderly manner, I spank one away and it soars towards the target defying chaos theory, is sublime.

So yes this human craves order but for some reason the random nature of the "gemme" has me always returning for more. I'm hooked.

Cheers Colin

[Connor Dougherty]

I'll say this...humans have been long conditioned to run with the herd and follow the pack.  And change is unsettling.

Mac,
Im most cases there's someone who leads the pack, and I don't think theres anyone who leads the pack more than Augusta National. If anyone craves order, its them. However, their sense of "order" is much more constrained to the appearance of the golf course. Perfectly green grass, symmetrically shaped, smooth-edged bunkers, and blue water. All juxtaposed against natural aspects, the azaleas and dogwoods. At least many of the holes remain interesting, compared to some other Golden Age gems that have been altered.

Peter,
I agree with you on both of your arguments. New York is an incredible city, for many of the reasons you mention. I also prefer the more natural look of golf courses. It's part of the reason I love Pasatiempo. In comparison, do Seth Raynor's courses lose value because man's influence on the land is evident? Do they gain value? Is their popularity tied to the idea that these golf holes resemble order?

I haven't played a Raynor/MacDonald course, so I've spent more time looking at their courses on here than any other architect. For the last month, I have been mesmerized by the beauty of the short hole at Sleepy Hollow, and I wonder if my preference for more natural looking courses is tied to the fact that I have not played/seen many interesting courses that embrace order (strictly from an appearance standpoint).

[Dan Kelly]

Welcome, Connor.

I'm not sure I have anything profound to say, but I do think your professor overgeneralizes about human beings.

My thesis: Any generalization about human beings is an overgeneralization.

I'm quite sure he's right that *most* human beings crave order, particularly when they have a choice in the matter -- there being so much disorder in so much of their lives over which they have no control.

Being in the majority, of course, their tastes generally rule the day.

This is why, in my opinion, there are so many cookie-cutter things in modern life -- from newspapers to big box stores to subdivisions to golf courses.

Most human beings crave order. Thus: 36 +36 = 72, everywhere you look.

That's why so many people think it's "goofy" (and that goofy is bad) when they see a course, like St. Paul's Town & Country Club (built in pre-modern times), with consecutive par-3s, three consecutive par-5s, and a par-3 finisher.

I think you'll find here, at golfclubatlas.com, some people who crave a little disorder. Or a lot.

[Garland Bayley]

Hummmmmppppppppppphhhhhh.

Last thing we need on this board is another Duck.

[Matthew Essig]

Let's say there are 49 female deer and 1 alpha male. The group wants to go to a watering hole, but there are two to pick from. Which one do they go to? Many people would say the group would go to the watering hole that the alpha male would want to go to, but according to recent scientific research, the deer have a democracy and go to which ever the majority wants. So why do many people think the alpha male controls everything? Why are humans so independent, and want to be the best? Why do we live in a society that gives a trophey to the best and focuses on celebrities?

This can be a very sensitive topic.... Of all topics in the world not just GCA. This can turn a very bad direction because it can become religious and political... Ugh. Let's just say I have had conversations like this too many times, so I suggest we stay on topic of GCA.

[Garland Bayley]

I doubt humans crave order. I think they just are too limited in their abilities so that they end up creating order by default. It is the truly exceptional that produce things that are recognized as brilliant without the inherent order.

[Carl Rogers]

With repetition over time and experiencing a range of understandable relationships between cause and effect, you create your own personal order. 

Example: learning how to drive a car.

The world exists to be understood (but of course you can't)

[Connor Dougherty]

Dan,
I think both my professor and I would agree with you. I think his comment related to the idea that most humans crave order. He has a great affinity for what is natural in this world. His big thing is gardens that embrace chaos and order, particularly when there is juxtaposition between the two.

If he plays golf, I would guess that his favorite designer would be Seth Raynor because of this. I'll have to ask him when I get the chance.

GJ Bailey,
Interesting point. In some cases I agree with you, particularly when you look at some of the Japanese gardens. It seemed like almost all of them try to simulate nature, and with time, they've done a pretty good job. However, some things lead me to believe that most of us want order. Looking at some of the earlier pictures of CB Macdonald's work, I have to believe that Seth Raynor understood how to build bunkers had a more natural appearance, but his bunkers are far from natural looking.

[Garland Bayley]

What makes you think a man that did the same thing over and over again was exceptional?

[Connor Dougherty]

What makes you think a man that did the same thing over and over again was exceptional?

I would say that it was exceptional because, from what I can tell from photographs and what is written on it, Raynor applied the template holes to the landscape where they seemed fit. For the same reason, I doubt that its necessary to play every Raynor design, but if I only played one or two, I'm sure that I would find the golf course to be interesting, challenging, and thought invigorating. I find the juxtaposition of Raynor's symmetrical hazards and the natural landscape incredibly powerful.

Again, full disclosure, I have not played one of his golf courses. So my feeling on his designs may change if/when I get to play one of his tracks.

On another note, how does this concept apply to routings? Are golfers more inclined to like out and back routings (Royal Troon i.e.) or routings that follow the landscape and take advantage of the natural features that may yield the most interesting holes? I think the 9+9=18 holes concept that Dan put up for par could also be applied to the 9th hole coming back to the clubhouse.

[Mike McGuire]

I have thought for a while the 'order' of golf made it popular.

Even though there is disorder in the play of the game the order of what to do is clear.

Get your clubs, hit some putts and go to the range. Then tee off on #1 and after that #2 etc... Stand here, dont stand there....

Thats why men hate going to the mall or the zoo - no order.

[Tom_Doak]

What makes you think a man that did the same thing over and over again was exceptional?

I would say that it was exceptional because, from what I can tell from photographs and what is written on it, Raynor applied the template holes to the landscape where they seemed fit. For the same reason, I doubt that its necessary to play every Raynor design, but if I only played one or two, I'm sure that I would find the golf course to be interesting, challenging, and thought invigorating. I find the juxtaposition of Raynor's symmetrical hazards and the natural landscape incredibly powerful.

Again, full disclosure, I have not played one of his golf courses. So my feeling on his designs may change if/when I get to play one of his tracks.

On another note, how does this concept apply to routings? Are golfers more inclined to like out and back routings (Royal Troon i.e.) or routings that follow the landscape and take advantage of the natural features that may yield the most interesting holes? I think the 9+9=18 holes concept that Dan put up for par could also be applied to the 9th hole coming back to the clubhouse.

Connor:

There are a lot of things in golf architecture that are done in the name of order, or making people comfortable.  I spent enough time in Scotland that it's hard to understand why so many golfers believe these things are important to golf -- because they aren't there in the home of golf -- but I am aware of them because of the feedback I get about my own courses.  I often break other people's rules -- sometimes unwittingly, and sometimes not. 

Seth Raynor was an engineer, and applying template holes to a landscape where they seem to fit is really just a form of engineering.  [In fact, lots of golf course architecture is its own highly specialized form of engineering, but you'll have to dig through the archives here for that speech.]  I rather doubt that would make Raynor the favorite golf designer of your college professor, but as I implied above, I often struggle to understand why others think the way they do.

[Peter Pallotta]

Connor - you asked me about Raynor (and Raynor vs naturalism). That's a big topic, and I probably can't add even a bit of value. I will say say that over the years I've come to appreciate his work more and more: see the Yeamans Hall thread. But, sometimes I get the feeling that with him it's more about the "idea" of the golf hole than it is the "idea" of the golf course.

On the other hand, I think my appreciation for Raynor grew when I realized that in fact many/most architects are actually similarly inclined, and yet (ironically) don't get criticized precisely because they don't pull it off as well as he did.

Peter  

[Jason Topp]

I think you need to distinguish between order in the sense of the comparison between an English Garden v. a more natural looking garden, for which tastes will vary as compared to order in terms of interesting problems that are provided on a golf course.  I believe that a natural rugged looking course often has as much order to it as a manicured course with clean lines.

When one stands on the tee and has no idea where the hole goes or what choices are involved in picking a target, I would guess that person will not like the experience 99% of the time - even participants on this board.  That is a course with no order.  By contrast, a course with hazards or slopes or other obstacles that tempt aggressive play has significant order, even if that course is presented in a very naturalistic style.  There is significant order to the designs of the golden age architects as well as those most admired on this board.  I would argue there is significant order to most blind holes, at least the second time around.  The Dell hole is not a mystery, it just presents a challenge that is unique.

The best designs are decipherable but leave enough mystery to keep us interested. 

[Tom Kelly]

This is why great golf courses are just that. Golf is in essence a mental game, golf courses which defy order get inside your head. You instinctively want your game to bring order to those courses by hitting perfect golf shots. That is almost impossible as we all know yet that craving for order brings you back time and again. Courses which already have order are just boring.

[Josh Tarble]

Good topic Connor.

This is why great golf courses are just that. Golf is in essence a mental game, golf courses which defy order get inside your head. You instinctively want your game to bring order to those courses by hitting perfect golf shots. That is almost impossible as we all know yet that craving for order brings you back time and again. Courses which already have order are just boring.

Tom Kelly hit this one on the head for me.  The courses that are less "acclaimed" seem to be very manufactured and in perfect order - because there is no or little strategy to them - basically hit a ball to this target.  The golfer is being dictated to on where to hit it.

The courses that are critically acclaimed and enjoyed by so many lose that sense of order - making golfers second guess their natural instinct. 

I think Macdonald/Raynor is where this really gets interesting.  On the surface it seems like their courses are perfectly in order, with very symmetrical and geometric hazards and greens but because they are so well designed, so strategic, they are completely out of order.  Bunkers are placed where an ideal drive would normally be hit, bunkers and shapes force your eyes away from ideal lines and so forth.

[John Kirk]

A minimalist golf course, a golf course laid upon the land with minimal changes to the topography, is orderly in the sense that nature has established the land contours over time.   The particles have settled there for a reason.  To me, that is a more profound sense of order.  Humans tend to disrupt the natural order, while for me this natural order is far more interesting to observe and play golf upon.

Edited...better.  

[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff, guys.  Great stuff.

I totally agree that it gets interesting when we bring Raynor into the discussion.  I'd argue that his use of Macdonalds templates is good, but there is something about his routing ability that touches on John Kirk's concept of the perfect sense of order that Mother Nature produces.  Which is weird due to his lack of natural looking features.

What did he stumble on to?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()