[Kyle Harris]

Sean:

Niall's tough sell is that conception, intent and execution of a shot should always meet with black and white results.

I consider golf more akin to a hunt than a game like soccer or baseball.

I don't think many hunters consider the quarry bad if they happen to move out of the way of a skillfully executed shot at the right moment.

[Mike Schott]

The camouflage is usually only deceptive for the first time player of the course.

Not the good stuff (IMHO) - at least not to the average golfer.
The best examples create consistent uncertainty or internal conflict even for those who would seem to have ample information and experience to overcome it.

I just played a shabby little 9-holer last night with my son.  I've probably played it 35 times in my lifetime.  #8 is a par 3 with a larger-than-course-scale bunker short and left of the green.  From the tee it looks like it is tight to the green, but its back edge is actually at least 5 paces short of the green.  I -know- it's like that as I've probably noted it in my mind 35 times.  But it doesn't look like its that short.  Instead, it looks like a real issue and suggests that the middle of the green is the "safe" play when in fact the left side is the safe play.  And while I play the 'right' shot based on my knowledge, I don't always play it 'well', and I give credit to the design for that.

I have no idea who designed the course, nor do I know with certainty that they meant for that to happen - but it's really, really good!

Thanks Scott. I think I've been influenced by how tour pro's would play a course, that is they get a yardage and hit the appropriate club. The rest of us fit your description. Thinking about my home course, number 8 is a 140 yard par 3 with a V shaped green, narrow at the front but the left side is blind due to mounding. An extra club is called for and would put you in the middle of the green. Yet on the tee you can't make yourself hit enough club.

[Adam Clayman]

Interesting idea, do you think that the architect can really be that subtle so as to judge what will give the golfer a clue and what will totally mislead ?

Maybe it's the experience of the golfer, that recognizes these tricks. But, yes, I believe the archie can be that subtle. Whether it's raising a lip, or, a spot in the fairway, where theres visibility, or not. It can be very subtle. Especially the clues. Remember, it's only blind once.

When I get fooled on an initial round, It's funny how many times ignorance was bliss. For when I know about the deception, I rarely hit as good a shot, as that first one. Safer, but rarely as good.

[paul cowley]

No...I'd put my design efforts elsewhere to better effect.

[Niall C]

Niall,

the third green at Moray Old is raised quite a bit into the air making it not only a skyline green but also look at least 1.5 to 2 clubs closer than it really is. The green at the 4th is so small that it always looks much further away than it really is. Are these poorly designed? Not in my book but you are of course free to disagree

Jon

PS. how about a game next month?

Jon

Game next month - definitely !

3rd Moray - not really the sort of example I was referring to, as there is no trickery in the sense of dead ground that forshortens the distance of the shot. Yes, most of the green is at eye-level but you can see the front of the green and have an intuitive idea as to roughly the distance to the middle of the green. You also have the shelf at the front right portion of the green which assists greatly with perception in my opinion. In many respects its like the type fo green that Donal/Frank referred to.

Niall

[Niall C]

At first I thought the question was for a lark.  Now that it seems clear the question was asked in earnest, I just don't know what to say other than I am miles apart from Niall on what constitutes good architecture.

Ciao

Sean

Admittedly, I do sometimes post tongue in cheek as you well know but yes this time I was serious. Now I'm not for one second suggesting that all courses should be laid out there in front of you with everything to see. On the contrary I love the idea of a golf course being an adventure the first time you play it, gradually revealing itself as you go round, and yes within that there would be ways you would play the course differently second time round. But what I'm referring to is the deliberate deception with regards to distance such that where a golfer hits the shot he conceives and comes up well short because of a deliberate ploy by the architect to forshorten the distrance.

Ally refers to Simpson using this ploy but while I recall the gist of Simpsons quote regarding bunkers being like lighthouses and all that, and I always took that quote to refer to showing the golfer the line of play, what I don't recall him advocating was deliberate deception as opposed to not making it obvious by way of bunkering etc. I could be wrong in that though.

Niall

[Niall C]

Sean:

Niall's tough sell is that conception, intent and execution of a shot should always meet with black and white results.

I consider golf more akin to a hunt than a game like soccer or baseball.

I don't think many hunters consider the quarry bad if they happen to move out of the way of a skillfully executed shot at the right moment.

Kyle

That's not my belief at all, nothing of the sort. Luck of the bounce, rub of the green are all part of the game as far as I'm concerned. Likewise the game being a challenge and the course presenting different ways to be played, not all of which are obvious. After all I do play most of my golf on links or inland courses laid out in the early part of the last century.

What I'm referring to is not an attempt to confuse but a deliberate attempt to deceive on the part of the architect. Is that good architecture. So far only Paul would seem to agree with me that it isn't, assuming I pick him up right.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

At first I thought the question was for a lark.  Now that it seems clear the question was asked in earnest, I just don't know what to say other than I am miles apart from Niall on what constitutes good architecture.

Ciao

Sean

Admittedly, I do sometimes post tongue in cheek as you well know but yes this time I was serious. Now I'm not for one second suggesting that all courses should be laid out there in front of you with everything to see. On the contrary I love the idea of a golf course being an adventure the first time you play it, gradually revealing itself as you go round, and yes within that there would be ways you would play the course differently second time round. But what I'm referring to is the deliberate deception with regards to distance such that where a golfer hits the shot he conceives and comes up well short because of a deliberate ploy by the architect to forshorten the distrance.

Ally refers to Simpson using this ploy but while I recall the gist of Simpsons quote regarding bunkers being like lighthouses and all that, and I always took that quote to refer to showing the golfer the line of play, what I don't recall him advocating was deliberate deception as opposed to not making it obvious by way of bunkering etc. I could be wrong in that though.

Niall

Niall, Simpson wrote extensively about deception, keeping the golfer guessing and testing the golfer mentally... I'll try and pull out some quotes...

[Jud_T]

Niall,

I agree that certain holes/courses can appear tricked up at first glance, and some for many glances thereafter.  The interesting thing to me, whether intentional or not, is not fooling you on the first play.  It's messing with your mind after multiple plays.  For instance, on a hole where you know there's plenty of hidden fairway hidden beyond a hazard or a significant rise, but it doesn't make the tee shot any less daunting.  Think of a blind golfer playing the shot and think of yourself playing it.  It's amazing how much the visual stimulus impacts your ability to make a relaxed, carefree swing even when you know there's plenty of room for error, simply because it doesn't look like there is, even after multiple plays.  Those times you payed the price for misjudging or mishitting the shot stick in your craw more, the more you play the hole.  It's down to the subtlety (and naturalness for some of us) of shaping, the specific visual cues, and the penalty for misclubbing, being too agressive or mishitting a shot.

[Niall C]

Thanks Ally I'd be interested to see them. I suppose the obvious Golden Age architect to use camouflage would be MacKenzie but I think he largely used it in the way Kyle refers to which is to disguise the hand of man. For a while at least I think he sometimes disguised/hid burns by raising the near side so that you couldn't see the far bank, the way you might with a ha ha. I suspect he grew out of this if he indeed ever did it and its not just my false impression of what he did at Pitreavie and elsewhere. Also if you look at the way he did his bunkering, and looked at them at a certain angle with the bunkers lined up, they looked as though they were continious even though there might be quite a significant distance between them. From the little I've seen (Duff House Royal) it only confuses rather than misleads if thats not too subtle a difference.

Niall

[BCrosby]

This is all well trod ground for Simpson.

I have to hit the road, but note his distinction between suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

Will try to pick this up tomorrow.

Bob

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks Ally I'd be interested to see them. I suppose the obvious Golden Age architect to use camouflage would be MacKenzie but I think he largely used it in the way Kyle refers to which is to disguise the hand of man. For a while at least I think he sometimes disguised/hid burns by raising the near side so that you couldn't see the far bank, the way you might with a ha ha. I suspect he grew out of this if he indeed ever did it and its not just my false impression of what he did at Pitreavie and elsewhere. Also if you look at the way he did his bunkering, and looked at them at a certain angle with the bunkers lined up, they looked as though they were continious even though there might be quite a significant distance between them. From the little I've seen (Duff House Royal) it only confuses rather than misleads if thats not too subtle a difference.

Niall

Niall, your last point is a frequent tool of architects by using diagonal hazards and changes in topography elevation... In the photo below, we've lined up the three left hand bunkers to look the same distance apart on this short par-4... But the closest two are only 15m apart in the fairway whilst the back one is a further 65m on, right by the greenside.... This is from the back blue tee but from the lower white tee the difference is even harder to tell... It was easily done because the land flattens out after the 2nd fairway bunker... By making the middle bunker small and the greenside one larger, we could add to the illusion....   
Carne From 6th blue tee_16 Aug'12 by Ally McIntosh, on Flickr

[Kyle Harris]

Sean:

Niall's tough sell is that conception, intent and execution of a shot should always meet with black and white results.

I consider golf more akin to a hunt than a game like soccer or baseball.

I don't think many hunters consider the quarry bad if they happen to move out of the way of a skillfully executed shot at the right moment.

Kyle

That's not my belief at all, nothing of the sort. Luck of the bounce, rub of the green are all part of the game as far as I'm concerned. Likewise the game being a challenge and the course presenting different ways to be played, not all of which are obvious. After all I do play most of my golf on links or inland courses laid out in the early part of the last century.

What I'm referring to is not an attempt to confuse but a deliberate attempt to deceive on the part of the architect. Is that good architecture. So far only Paul would seem to agree with me that it isn't, assuming I pick him up right.

Niall

Niall,

I am not sure I understand the difference between an attempt to confuse and a deliberate attempt to deceive.

[Jud_T]

Kyle,

I think one means you think you know what's going on but aren't sure.  The other means you have no F*&%ing clue!   

[Ivan Morris]

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me! The problems is we may only have one chance at taking on certain courses. Even allowing for first thoughts being usually best, forming an unbreakable opinion based on one outing is hardly wise, or fair. 

[Niall C]

Ivan

Not sure what your post is about. This thread is about architectural intent.

Jud

The first part of your interpretation is correct but as for the second, rather than having no clue, the player thinks something else entirely is going on due to the deliberate attempt of the architect to deceive.

Niall

[Niall C]

Ally

What Mac did at Duff House was make the bunkers look as though from the right angle that they were one continuous bunker system even there were separate bunkers with a fair distance between them. Different to what you're doing in that photo. I've no way of knowing Macs intent but to me it doesn't look like an attempt to deceive the player about distance but could be wrong.

Niall

[Kyle Harris]

Niall,

So, in essence one is a smoke screen while the other is a mirage?

[Niall C]

Kyle

Hopefully over my previous posts its now quite clear what I mean, at least to some. To start trying to explain it using analogy's or whatever probably isn't going to help.

Niall

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

Hopefully over my previous posts its now quite clear what I mean, at least to some. To start trying to explain it using analogy's or whatever probably isn't going to help.

Niall

It's actually an interesting dichotomy.

So much so, Tom Paul actually called me about it!

[Sean_A]

At first I thought the question was for a lark.  Now that it seems clear the question was asked in earnest, I just don't know what to say other than I am miles apart from Niall on what constitutes good architecture.

Ciao

Sean

Admittedly, I do sometimes post tongue in cheek as you well know but yes this time I was serious. Now I'm not for one second suggesting that all courses should be laid out there in front of you with everything to see. On the contrary I love the idea of a golf course being an adventure the first time you play it, gradually revealing itself as you go round, and yes within that there would be ways you would play the course differently second time round. But what I'm referring to is the deliberate deception with regards to distance such that where a golfer hits the shot he conceives and comes up well short because of a deliberate ploy by the architect to forshorten the distrance.

Ally refers to Simpson using this ploy but while I recall the gist of Simpsons quote regarding bunkers being like lighthouses and all that, and I always took that quote to refer to showing the golfer the line of play, what I don't recall him advocating was deliberate deception as opposed to not making it obvious by way of bunkering etc. I could be wrong in that though.

Niall

Having just played New Zealand, if your concept of deception were deemed illegitimate than some of Simpson's bunkers which are brilliantly conceived and placed would be deemed poor architecture.  I find it hard to imagine that anyone who has experienced the bunkering at New Zealand could say it is poor architecture.  



Closer in




Closer in


Indeed, it is exactly this visual trickery which leads me to believe that yardage aids should not be allowed.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

What Mac did at Duff House was make the bunkers look as though from the right angle that they were one continuous bunker system even there were separate bunkers with a fair distance between them. Different to what you're doing in that photo. I've no way of knowing Macs intent but to me it doesn't look like an attempt to deceive the player about distance but could be wrong.

Niall

Niall, it's not really a different thing... Just a different execution, perhaps with a different intent.... It's all visual deception using scale and the lie of the land... Be interested to see the Duff House example though - it's been a long, long time since I visited...

[Niall C]

Sean

I'm not sure that I'm seeing the same thing in those photos as you. In the first example there is enough visual clues to gauge the distance of the green, for one thing you can see the front of the green to the side of the bunker. For sure the bunker makes it more difficult because when you are lining up the shot, the bunker catches the eye and therefore you have to consciously put it out of your mind in terms of distance but instead imagine the distance to the hole. I would call that an attempt to confuse rather than deceive. Similar to the greens at eye level that Donal referred to.

Similarly in the second example. Not sure what the box structure is behind the green but I would imagine that would help in gauging distance with suitable allowance.

Ally

The Duff House example might just be the way Mac built his bunkers or at least the clean edged Augusta white sand treatment they've had recently. I have taken quite a number of photo's of Duff House but not sure if I've ever taken one to record that effect. Need to have a look see.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Confuse or deceive - oh what a tangled web we weave!

Because there are clues to properly gauge a hole doesn't mean the bunkers don't cause deception. 

I guess you will need to better explain deception. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

The very best examples of this type of architecture are those where there are clear deceiving signals but where there are also sufficient clues as to the real layout of the hole that a good golfer, properly reading the signes and clues understands the shot that is required, even though it may not "look" right.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()