Controversial Design = Good Design?

[Josh Tarble]

I don't think the gap is THAT severe, Howard.   

I do think you bring up an interesting scenario...because that gets into the question of when is it an architects fault and when is it the superintendents fault? 

In regards to Streamsong, I'll defer to you as I haven't experienced greens that were over the top...every time I've played they have been in-tuned nicely with the architecture.  As soon as they would get too fast some could be considered very severe.  #11 doesn't seem like it'd be worse than #5 and #7 though.  I wonder if #11 is worse than others because it's very exposed to the wind.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

I wonder if #11 is worse than others because it's very exposed to the wind.

If I remember correctly, #11B played downwind two of the three rounds during the Feathery and I would estimate the average windspeed to have been between 10-20mph for the majority of the event.

#11B played very difficult in my opinion and I am still not sure how to play it under the conditions we had - my last round I hit driver then a knockdown six iron from 185 yards. I probably carried the 6 iron 100 yards in the air and it easily rolled out another 100 yards. Four shots later I had a smooth double bogey. The obvious answer is to only carry the ball 85 yards in the future...

The hole on Friday was cut in a bad spot for the conditions and as is previously mentioned it was re-cut by lunch.

While I enjoyed the hole, I do think it played very difficult and was probably one of the holes that generated the most discussion.

One issue I do see with #11B and #12B is the proximity of #12B tee to the previous green. I love close transitions and a course built for walking, but for a resort course with golfers firing long irons and hybrids into the green, even the slightest pull can be an issue. I wonder if anyone else feels this way or if that was a discussion during the design/construction process...

[Tom_Doak]

Let's go back to Streamsong, since it seems many here have played it.  I don't consider #11 too hard at all.  The last time I played it, I went driver 8 iron from the tips...that green doesn't seem unreasonable under that condition. 

Keep in mind that Driver/8 iron for you is Driver/hybrid for the other 99% of retail golfers.  The green is that more severe when you're not thowing darts with an 8 iron.

When we played the other week, the pin on Friday morning was on the right side and toward the back. Such a difficult pin that it was resulting in three and four putts, slowing down groups and the staff had it changed before noon.  

On the other hand, #13 to me fits the controversial but not hard criteria.  In my opinion, there just isn't a great play, if you lay up it's a difficult blind shot to a tough green.  Hit driver and it's perfection of bust...  But it's still only 300 yards, so maybe that's fair to ask those questions as well.

I agree that #13 is more controversial. There's no great play no matter your handicap. There's no miss outside of beyond the green.

In the first instance, the green on #11 at Streamsong was certainly NOT designed with an 8-iron approach in mind.  What most people miss is that an approach that is rolling to its end [which I expected on such a long par-4] is LESS affected by rolling waves of undulation than an aerial approach that lands on the downslope.

In the second instance, the green on #13 at Streamsong is being approached with a wedge, even after a 5-iron tee shot, and has short grass on three sides [though it is designed to be difficult to get up and down from the right].  How is that so controversial?  It's the same principle as #6 at Dismal River (Red), which most people love.

Bottom line, I think such greens are kosher on any half-par hole, whether it's a long par-4 or a short par-4.  But I expect it to be more controversial on the hole that's more difficult in relation to par.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

How do you know when it's just too hard and when it's a matter of opinion?

How about this...

Good controversial design/hole = You can't wait to play it and, even if different and/or challenging, you are thrilled to tackle it.

Bad controversial design/hole = You dread playing it.  It really isn't fun at all.  You'd rather take double and skip it.

Well, those are opinions, too.  Design matters always are.

Where I think you start to approach the line is when the divergence of opinion is easily predicted by handicap.  If that is happening, the hole probably favors one group too much.

Even then, I'll give it a pass if the next controversial hole favors a different group.  But if it favors the first group, again, then the golf course is going off track.  As Chris says, that's when some guys decide it really isn't fun at all.

I have heard plenty of people say they didn't like some feature or another at Streamsong, but few have said they didn't find it fun to play.  That's my definition of acceptable controversy.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

#13 Blue...played it 6 times six bogies...now ask me if I like it

If I ever figure out or really trust how big the green is I will be okay, but each time I play it, I think I am hiting to a tiny target abd try to get too cute, as such it has Royaly kicked my arse six times in a row.
I do wish that the landing area for the "risk" portion of this particular risk / reward hole was a little more realistic though, knowing that in reality a shot of about 190 is the only option limits the holes prospects.

[Josh Tarble]

Tom,
I don't actually think #13B is controversial - I have played it really well in two plays - but I could see how it could be perceived that way.  The bailout, as MWP, stated leaves a really difficult blind shot and the go-for-it shot is perfection or nothing. But at 300 yards, I personally think it can get away with a bit more than on a longer hole.

Your insight is very interesting about actually flying the ball to the green...so maybe the hole is limited in options, just the play normally associated with limited options (aerial approach) is not the one to use.

Where I think you start to approach the line is when the divergence of opinion is easily predicted by handicap.  If that is happening, the hole probably favors one group too much.

Even then, I'll give it a pass if the next controversial hole favors a different group.  But if it favors the first group, again, then the golf course is going off track.  As Chris says, that's when some guys decide it really isn't fun at all.

I do think this is a very interesting comment and brings up another thought I have...does controversy stem from being "unfair" towards the better player?  Or does it come from being too difficult for the weaker player? 

I look at a hole like BT #14 (I haven't played it, just going from descriptions) is one where they've made changes due to the better player.  I'm just guessing here, but I'd imagine most low handicaps (and in turn a lot of who's traveling to Bandon) stand on the tee expecting birdie or better...when they're typically walking away with worse than bogey it creates a stir. 

This is how I could see #13B being discussed.  But maybe because their is so much water and trouble it 1) decreases people hitting driver 2)lowers expectations

Again, I may just be going off the rails and this winter has been far too long but I do think good design, people's expectations and controversial holes all are intertwined.

[Kevin Lynch]

One day I hope, there will be a larger number of east coast GCA'ers that will experience Ballyhack .... and conduct their own test of the question posed by this thread.

How does Tobacco Road work with this thread?  Has it evolved from controversial (because it is well known) to something else?

Those two thoughts illustrate the many facets of what makes a course "controversial."  Like others said earlier, there is a distinction between controversy that is based on difficulty / playability, versus controversy based on course styles / preferences.  Also, I think there's a distinction to be made between controversial "design" vs controversial "set-up."  

With respect to Tobacco Road, I think you're really talking about the "polarizing" version of controversial.  At first, it may have been controversial because it was so different and shocking.  It's perceived difficulty was controversial, but once people realized it was more "visual intimidation" as opposed to true punitive obstacles, that element of the controversy was lessened.  As it's become more well known, I think it's really more a matter of love/hate relative to your opinion on blind shots.

With respect to Ballyhack, the severe topography is bound to cause some controversy on the "preference" level.  If someone hates uneven stances, awkward lies and severely uphill or downhill approaches, Ballyhack is simply not going to be their cup of tea, which is really no reflection on the design.  I play on a course that is a ski resort in the winter, so Ballyhack's land or a ball 6-8 inches above or below my feet doesn't phase me in the least - but I realize not everyone enjoys that like I do.  But there is no doubt that Ballyhack's design meets the "fun" threshold, with plenty of options, daring shots, 1/2 par holes, interesting greens, etc.  


But where there is often controversy is really in the "set-up" rather than the actual design.  How close to the playing corridor is the "lost ball rough"?  How severe is the rough maintained in the first cut?  While I have not been to Dismal, the sense I received from the various threads was that there was a softening in the set-up over the years, which reduced controversy.  At Ballyhack, I have noticed a significant difference in the course from the first time I played it in 2010, compared to recent visits.  There is a much more "absolute" punishment for missed shots in recent years.  Is it the proper balance?  It's hard to say, but the difference of opinions are bound to cause some controversy.

[Sean_A]

Tom or whoever else

Using a posterboy example, St Enodoc's 10th; too damn hard, stupid, quizical or controversial?

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Interestingly the easiest and perhaps best way to have quirk and controversy that is playable for both low and high handicaps is at or around the green.  As everyone hits the ball different distances, the green is the great equalizer.  Funnily though it seems it's usually the lower handicaps who feel entitled to 2-putt every green hit in reg and whine the most about unfairness of severe greens.  Of course due to the green speed arms race we won't have to worry about really controversial greens for too much longer.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom or whoever else

Using a posterboy example, St Enodoc's 10th; too damn hard, stupid, quizical or controversial?

Well, I love that hole -- I wish I had a picture of it to post.  I believe in The Confidential Guide I gave it one of these notations:  !?  

Which means I think it's great, but also controversial.

It's controversial because the tee shot pinches down to nothing at 240 yards [creek on the left, hill on the right for those who haven't seen it], and at 450 yards long hitters want to use their length to advantage, and the hole seems not to let them do so.  Of course, they can bomb away off the tee and play their second from a steep sidehill lie on the right ... but that's not good enough, they want a flat lie.

If there were three more holes like that at St. Enodoc, which restricted the length of the drive, I'd feel differently.  Doing it just once, and on a hole of that length, is genius.

[BCowan]

''Of course due to the green speed arms race we won't have to worry about really controversial greens for too much longer.''

 

[jeffwarne]

Tom or whoever else

Using a posterboy example, St Enodoc's 10th; too damn hard, stupid, quizical or controversial?

Well, I love that hole -- I wish I had a picture of it to post.  I believe in The Confidential Guide I gave it one of these notations:  !?  

Which means I think it's great, but also controversial.

It's controversial because the tee shot pinches down to nothing at 240 yards [creek on the left, hill on the right for those who haven't seen it], and at 450 yards long hitters want to use their length to advantage, and the hole seems not to let them do so.  Of course, they can bomb away off the tee and play their second from a steep sidehill lie on the right ... but that's not good enough, they want a flat lie.

If there were three more holes like that at St. Enodoc, which restricted the length of the drive, I'd feel differently.  Doing it just once, and on a hole of that length, is genius.

Loved that hole
5 wood-5 wood

"Rules" of architecture and fairness and the ability to "fix" the terrain are what have made so many courses designed over the past 50 years so predictable and  uninspiring.
Now I'm finding out a short iron/wedge off a downhill lie over water is unstrategic and unfair for a 15 handicap

[Sean_A]

Jeff & Tom

Cheers.  I see that idea of "balance" in your comments Tom; once, maybe twice is okay to work with, three or four times tips the scale. 

The 10th has grown on me mainly because of how unique the hole is and the second shot.  The land is set-up for a running hook second if folks care to look so the green is reachable after a lay-up, although many people will need driver to reach the isthmus between the hill and water.  Even when short in two, the chip and putt isn't overly difficult. 

Sticking with St Enodoc, what about the 3rd? 

Ciao

[Don_Mahaffey]

So which great classic courses have no controversial holes or features?

Which moderns?  Any controversy at Sand Hills? Pacific Dunes?

Are we less willing to accept controversy?  If the original 14th at Trails has survived to see the age of 10, would it still be softened?

I think with the modern rules for agronomy and the idea of fairness it is hard for a controversial feature or hole to survive infancy.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO a hole's controversy is often based on it's relation to par.  The modern player cannot accept a 1/2 par hole.  But the controversy that freaks me is style controversy.  For instance, The JE style is controversial to me in a big way.  It will be interesting to see how history treats it. 

[Jason Topp]

  Any controversy at Sand Hills? Pacific Dunes?

13 at Sand Hills is pretty controversial among my friends.  They consider the green too severe for that long of a par three.

I do not think Pacific Dunes has controversial holes but I have heard divergent opinions on 1, 6, 12 and 18.  1 feels a bit squeezed and the green site is awkward.  6 is disliked by thoise who hit it left - the green is incredibly severe from that angle (of course, that is the point).  12 is considered bland by some but I think it is one of the more interesting par 5 2nd shots I have played (I played it downwind); 18 is considered a bit of a slog by some.

I am not sure whether or not controversial holes have become less acceptable.  I suspect good modern courses have more controversial holes than those of 40 years ago.  Dormie Club has quite a few. Diamante has a couple.  Jeff Brauer's Quarry has a hole that sounds similar to the one described at the beginning of this thread.  People complain about those holes, but I suspect they would have complained in 1929 about them as well.   

[Frank Giordano]

Anything that is controversial is neither inherently good or bad.  Rather, it runs counter to ( Latin roots: contra ) established norms or turns ( versus ) away from the status quo.  A vast  majority of the art that might be called controversial is awful and very short-lived, as in the case of books, which often fall stillborn from the press.  The same might be said of controversial works in other arts.

The good news, though, is that established norms and the status quo, though they often have a validity based on more or less established conventions ( con and venio , the coming together or meeting of minds over time ), aren't inherently good and durable either.  And that's where the high value -- the good -- of the controversial work or artist or movement comes in.  The controversial Romantic poet William Blake said "There is no Progress without Contraries" to justify his movement away from the poetry of the 18th Century.  And the great Impressionist French artists of the mid-19th century were considered beasts, crude and unsophisticated dabblers.  Yet the Romantics and the Impressionists created new ways forward in their deviating from the accepted artistic norms of their eras. 

What matters most with controversial art -- and this is true of golf course design as well --  is not the initial shock of a, for example, Dye-abolical hole or course, but whether, over time, enough sound minds not only come together in agreeing to the work's worth, but begin to use it as a model or template for their own works and an inspiration for their own daring experiments in design, particularly those experiments that create a refreshed artistic vocabulary.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I would hate to play a golf course that didnt give me a little controversial food for thought.
That initial viewpoint of contoversy to me meanns that the arcghitect got be off balance and made me think outside of the comfort zone, which is surely what good courses do.
If I dont like a hole it is probably pretty good

[Mac Plumart]

Isn't 9 at Kingsley controversial?

[Howard Riefs]

Isn't 9 at Kingsley controversial?

2, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17

Yet, I still love it so.

[Ben Sims]

I feel like we're combining the terms controversial, aggressive, and quirky. They aren't the same thing.

The Road hole is quirky, but it isn't controversial.

The 7th at Ballyneal is aggressive architecture, but it isn't controversial.

Conversely, a controversial (adj. given rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement) hole might be a hole where it is neither quirky nor aggressive. 

[Tom_Doak]

I do not think Pacific Dunes has controversial holes but I have heard divergent opinions on 1, 6, 12 and 18.  1 feels a bit squeezed and the green site is awkward.  6 is disliked by thoise who hit it left - the green is incredibly severe from that angle (of course, that is the point).  12 is considered bland by some but I think it is one of the more interesting par 5 2nd shots I have played (I played it downwind); 18 is considered a bit of a slog by some.   

I thought that many of the holes had the potential to be controversial when we built it.  For example:

#1  blind tee shot, death to the right; bumpy fairway
#2  there is a nasty bunker in the middle of the fairway with a dead tree behind it
#3  severity behind the green
#4  green tilted right on edge of clifftop
#6  20-foot-deep bunker left, narrow green
etc.

There is hardly a hole on the course that WOULDN'T be controversial in the middle of a Rees Jones design.  But, as MacKenzie remarked about Cypress Point, it is such a beautiful place [and in Bandon, the culture of the place is so well tied to the culture of the golf course] that almost no one picks on these features as controversial.

The other thing is, the controversy is mitigated by the length of the course.  If it was 7400 yards and had all the same features, it would be Sebonack, and people would say it was far too hard.

[Tim_Weiman]

I do not think Pacific Dunes has controversial holes but I have heard divergent opinions on 1, 6, 12 and 18.  1 feels a bit squeezed and the green site is awkward.  6 is disliked by thoise who hit it left - the green is incredibly severe from that angle (of course, that is the point).  12 is considered bland by some but I think it is one of the more interesting par 5 2nd shots I have played (I played it downwind); 18 is considered a bit of a slog by some.   

I thought that many of the holes had the potential to be controversial when we built it.  For example:

#1  blind tee shot, death to the right; bumpy fairway
#2  there is a nasty bunker in the middle of the fairway with a dead tree behind it
#3  severity behind the green
#4  green tilted right on edge of clifftop
#6  20-foot-deep bunker left, narrow green
etc.

There is hardly a hole on the course that WOULDN'T be controversial in the middle of a Rees Jones design.  But, as MacKenzie remarked about Cypress Point, it is such a beautiful place [and in Bandon, the culture of the place is so well tied to the culture of the golf course] that almost no one picks on these features as controversial.

The other thing is, the controversy is mitigated by the length of the course.  If it was 7400 yards and had all the same features, it would be Sebonack, and people would say it was far too hard.

Tom,

I would have thought #6 would be the most controversial, but the hole also has a certain charm to it, perhaps because of the visibility of the green from the tee.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Anything that is controversial is neither inherently good or bad.  Rather, it runs counter to ( Latin roots: contra ) established norms or turns ( versus ) away from the status quo.  A vast  majority of the art that might be called controversial is awful and very short-lived, as in the case of books, which often fall stillborn from the press.  The same might be said of controversial works in other arts.

The good news, though, is that established norms and the status quo, though they often have a validity based on more or less established conventions ( con and venio , the coming together or meeting of minds over time ), aren't inherently good and durable either.  And that's where the high value -- the good -- of the controversial work or artist or movement comes in.  The controversial Romantic poet William Blake said "There is no Progress without Contraries" to justify his movement away from the poetry of the 18th Century.  And the great Impressionist French artists of the mid-19th century were considered beasts, crude and unsophisticated dabblers.  Yet the Romantics and the Impressionists created new ways forward in their deviating from the accepted artistic norms of their eras. 

What matters most with controversial art -- and this is true of golf course design as well --  is not the initial shock of a, for example, Dye-abolical hole or course, but whether, over time, enough sound minds not only come together in agreeing to the work's worth, but begin to use it as a model or template for their own works and an inspiration for their own daring experiments in design, particularly those experiments that create a refreshed artistic vocabulary.

Fantastic post, Frank! Marry your thought to Mackenzie's comments on the topic and there's more food for thought than can be digested in one sitting.

[Mac Plumart]

Anything that is controversial is neither inherently good or bad.  Rather, it runs counter to ( Latin roots: contra ) established norms or turns ( versus ) away from the status quo.  A vast  majority of the art that might be called controversial is awful and very short-lived, as in the case of books, which often fall stillborn from the press.  The same might be said of controversial works in other arts.

The good news, though, is that established norms and the status quo, though they often have a validity based on more or less established conventions ( con and venio , the coming together or meeting of minds over time ), aren't inherently good and durable either.  And that's where the high value -- the good -- of the controversial work or artist or movement comes in.  The controversial Romantic poet William Blake said "There is no Progress without Contraries" to justify his movement away from the poetry of the 18th Century.  And the great Impressionist French artists of the mid-19th century were considered beasts, crude and unsophisticated dabblers.  Yet the Romantics and the Impressionists created new ways forward in their deviating from the accepted artistic norms of their eras. 

What matters most with controversial art -- and this is true of golf course design as well --  is not the initial shock of a, for example, Dye-abolical hole or course, but whether, over time, enough sound minds not only come together in agreeing to the work's worth, but begin to use it as a model or template for their own works and an inspiration for their own daring experiments in design, particularly those experiments that create a refreshed artistic vocabulary.

Fantastic post, Frank! Marry your thought to Mackenzie's comments on the topic and there's more food for thought than can be digested in one sitting.

+1 brilliant!  Cut and pasted for the MRP Archives.