Controversial Design = Good Design?

[Sean_A]

...enough sound minds not only come together in agreeing to the work's worth....for their own works and an inspiration for their own daring experiments in design, particularly those experiments that create a refreshed artistic vocabulary.

This section of the Frank's post intrigues me the most.  I reckon a lot of controversial golf design was created in "needs must" situations so in effect would be very difficult to duplicate unless purposefully built.  And then it does seem strange (to me at least) to build a blind hole rather than finding a blind hole.  So it seems entirely reasonable that templates would not be faithful to the original.  For instance, to copy the Alps by building it strikes me as odd, but not so much the general idea of the hole.  Maybe the controversial holes, over time, give confidence to archies to push the envelope. It could also explain why a course like Tobacco Road is so polar.  Perhaps many people will accept needs must controversy over a guy recreating the controversy with a bulldozer.  In any case, I often wonder why a course like North Berwick can be universally loved for its funk, but Kington remain completely unknown. 

Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

In any case, I often wonder why a course like North Berwick can be universally loved for its funk, but Kington remain completely unknown.  

If Kington were at the shore and just down the road from Gullane, and North Berwick was way up in the hills toward Wales, it might be the other way round, although North Berwick does make excellent use of all that seashore.

As for the earlier part of your post, it is not so much whether new architects "build" a blind hole from scratch [as we did at Old Macdonald] than whether they have the interest and the guts to include one in the routing, as Macdonald did for the 3rd at National.  And whether their clients would let them.  There were several features at Old Mac that I probably wouldn't have built if my name was on the course, but even if I'd wanted to, Mr. Keiser may not have LET me build, because he wants his controversy in limited doses, too.

[Sean_A]

In any case, I often wonder why a course like North Berwick can be universally loved for its funk, but Kington remain completely unknown.  

If Kington were at the shore and just down the road from Gullane, and North Berwick was way up in the hills toward Wales, it might be the other way round, although North Berwick does make excellent use of all that seashore.

As for the earlier part of your post, it is not so much whether new architects "build" a blind hole from scratch [as we did at Old Macdonald] than whether they have the interest and the guts to include one in the routing, as Macdonald did for the 3rd at National.  And whether their clients would let them.  There were several features at Old Mac that I probably wouldn't have built if my name was on the course, but even if I'd wanted to, Mr. Keiser may not have LET me build, because he wants his controversy in limited doses, too.

Tom

Yes, then of course is the influence of the money man - who undoubtably has been weened on modern design sensibilities.  Do you think the money men are more influential today than yesteryear?  I get the impression that back in the day there was more acceptance for funk because golfers saw it as essential to the game both in terms of needs must and as design challenge/fun.  Professional archies started a codification process which really continues today and makes it very difficult to break the norm.  Often times people will point to "controversial holes" and I don't think of them as controversial at all.  Modern folks have become far less tolerant of norm breaking.   

My point about Kington/N Berwick was there is nothing as outrageous a wall fronting a green at Kington, yet folks smile at North Berwick and are perplexed by Kington.  Both courses strike me as sensible designs given the time period, budget sensibilities of the time and lack of design codification.   

What do you think about St Enodoc's 3rd in terms of controversy; thumbs up or down and why?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

 

My point about Kington/N Berwick was there is nothing as outrageous a wall fronting a green at Kington, yet folks smile at North Berwick and are perplexed by Kington.  Both courses strike me as sensible designs given the time period, budget sensibilities of the time and lack of design codification.   

Sean - I ask this having never visited Kington.

Do you think it matters in people's perception that North Berwick appears completely natural whilst Kington has obvious man made elements?

[Sean_A]

 

My point about Kington/N Berwick was there is nothing as outrageous a wall fronting a green at Kington, yet folks smile at North Berwick and are perplexed by Kington.  Both courses strike me as sensible designs given the time period, budget sensibilities of the time and lack of design codification.   

Sean - I ask this having never visited Kington.

Do you think it matters in people's perception that North Berwick appears completely natural whilst Kington has obvious man made elements?

Ally

Maybe, but NB's wall (I think the only really funky feature on the course) is anything but natural 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

 

My point about Kington/N Berwick was there is nothing as outrageous a wall fronting a green at Kington, yet folks smile at North Berwick and are perplexed by Kington.  Both courses strike me as sensible designs given the time period, budget sensibilities of the time and lack of design codification.   

Sean - I ask this having never visited Kington.

Do you think it matters in people's perception that North Berwick appears completely natural whilst Kington has obvious man made elements?

Ally

Maybe, but NB's wall (I think the only really funky feature on the course) is anything but natural 

Ciao

It's natural in so much as it was there before the course (I suspect).

It was only a thought - people seem to be quicker to forgive nature than man

[Bill Brightly]

There was a lot of talk about SS Blue #11 at the Feathery. It is very challenging because of the green but not controversial from a difficulty perspective, IMO. (Hole 18 playing dead into the wind is far more controversial.)  My question for Tom involves his routing decisions. I assume the placement of the 12th tee was sort of fixed. (I assume the tee could not be moved left due to water conditions when there is a lot of rain.) But the 12th tee is in play for all those using 3 woods and rescue club approaches to the 11th green. So there is a bit of a safety issue.  There is a 40-50 yard walk from the 10th tee to the 11th green. Was thought given to "shifting" the entire 11th hole 40 yards or so closer to the 10th? Was the 11th greensite natural, leading to its placement? Or was it the cool rise in the fairway landing area near the centerline bunker that dictated the hole's placement? Was thought given to moving enough dirt to re-create the holes as it appears today, just closer to the 10th? Or would moving that much dirt run counter to a minimalist approach?

[JC Jones]

  There were several features at Old Mac that I probably wouldn't have built if my name was on the course, but even if I'd wanted to, Mr. Keiser may not have LET me build, because he wants his controversy in limited doses, too.

I'm confused by this statement because your name is on the course.  Am I missing something?

[Ian Andrew]

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

Tom,

The answer why that all works or is acceptable is width.
There are ways or the average player to play around everything you talked about, with an extra shot if they feel the need.



Sometimes golf needs to be about perseverance, strong players tend to think everything shoul be an opportunity.
If find they, rather than the everyday player, tends to place the controversial or bad design label when frustrated.
Often it's a pin position they can't access and shouldn't play at.

[Tom_Doak]

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

Tom,

The answer why that all works or is acceptable is width.
There are ways or the average player to play around everything you talked about, with an extra shot if they feel the need.



Sometimes golf needs to be about perseverance, strong players tend to think everything shoul be an opportunity.
If find they, rather than the everyday player, tends to place the controversial or bad design label when frustrated.
Often it's a pin position they can't access and shouldn't play at.

Ian:

I knew all the holes would work but I was surprised that they weren't more controversial.

Your last point is well expressed though, I've never thought about it in quite that way, though I've always recognized that quirky or severe features are much more easily accepted on a short, half-par hole than on a long, par-and-a-half hole.

[Mark Bourgeois]

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.

I wonder if architects and owners have the patience to put up with public criticism. How many "controversial" designs (or even holes) these days are protected long enough for an entire cycle of public tastes to catch up? Relative to other forms of art, design and architecture, golf courses lack permanence and are too easily changed.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

I wonder if architects and owners have the patience to put up with public criticism. How many "controversial" designs (or even holes) these days are protected long enough for an entire cycle of public tastes to catch up? Relative to other forms of art, design and architecture, golf courses lack permanence and are too easily changed.

Mark:

There's some truth to that, though if the architect BUILDS a controversial hole, he probably intends to put up with the criticism.  But, the architect doesn't own the course, so if the owner listens to the criticism, the architect is often asked to make changes before he may want to.

[Tom_Doak]

  There were several features at Old Mac that I probably wouldn't have built if my name was on the course, but even if I'd wanted to, Mr. Keiser may not have LET me build, because he wants his controversy in limited doses, too.

I'm confused by this statement because your name is on the course.  Am I missing something?

The course is marketed by Macdonald's name, as much as by my own.  [Very shrewd of Mr. Keiser to get a fourth designer's "name" to add to the resort while working with someone he already knew well.]  And, I had a whole committee of others providing input.  It wouldn't have been quite the same without each of them.

[Mark Bourgeois]

What are ways to minimize that risk? How effective are architects at practicing the principle of informed consent viz owners?

[Tom_Doak]

What are ways to minimize that risk? How effective are architects at practicing the principle of informed consent viz owners?

I'm not sure any of us are even smart enough to understand your question.  For me at least, you need to rephrase.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Basically I'm just asking how effective it is to educate the owner / sponsor and guide them to a decision. Assuming you're able to give them a solid grounding and they believe it's their decision -- and you're actually able to identify what will be controversial -- how effective is that at protecting the feature/hole/course from changes due to criticism when it comes?

(I'm sure you're familiar with the principle of informed consent in health care. I mean it in the broadest context here: the expert explains to the client what he is doing and why he is doing it, and then guides the client to a decision. Ultimately it is the client's decision, although the expert, being an expert, wields significant influence.)

[Tom_Doak]

Basically I'm just asking how effective it is to educate the owner / sponsor and guide them to a decision. Assuming you're able to give them a solid grounding and they believe it's their decision -- and you're actually able to identify what will be controversial -- how effective is that at protecting the feature/hole/course from changes due to criticism when it comes?

(I'm sure you're familiar with the principle of informed consent in health care. I mean it in the broadest context here: the expert explains to the client what he is doing and why he is doing it, and then guides the client to a decision. Ultimately it is the client's decision, although the expert, being an expert, wields significant influence.)

Mark:

I expected you meant something like that, I just wanted to be sure before I assumed wrongly.

Yes, when I'm building something I suspect might be controversial, I want the client to understand it and think it's cool.  I learned right from my first course (High Pointe), where the client never expressed his preferences or interfered with my design, that is not the ideal because after I leave, the client might listen to the first person who tells him a hole is stupid, instead of laughing away their critique.

But not all clients stay that involved in the process -- they're busy, and sometimes things happen fast.  And just because they agreed doesn't mean they'll stick with it when it's questioned by a significant percentage of golfers.  At High Pointe we imagined a hole where 50% of people hated it and 50% loved it, but in practice, clients' thresholds are more likely to be somewhere between 25% and 5% complaints.  I don't know what that number is for Mike Keiser, but it's somewhere in there.  And few owners stay as informed during the process as Mike does.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Informed consent is a pain in the ass and slows down progress. But not as much a pain in the ass as eschewing it.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Informed consent is a pain in the ass and slows down progress. But not as much a pain in the ass as eschewing it.

Try practicing Pediatric Dentistisry without it

[Jeff_Brauer]

Had a call from TePaul today, reminding that Mac and CBM both said it was a good thing to be controversial.  Discussion followed.

I allowed that things are more standardized today, because of another century of experience of what works well and what doesn't.  Also, CBM in particular felt he was educating an entire nation on what was good design, not just an owner.  Lastly, they were both good marketeers, and somewhere in me, I have to think their statements are meant to stir up press, good or bad.  The need for press is much different these days, as golf architecture reporting has matured, too.

The stuff I have done that owners thought were controversial were the Biaritz green (I get an email from MN every spring from the super asking for the over under on when the ice melts in the swale) even a Redan - where a good player who was owner rep objected to letting "lesser players" use the bounce in, and even a punch bowl, derided as far too easy. Late on the owner changed his mind, after his son declared it his favorite hole - "Dad, I can hit it anywhere and it ends up near the pin...how cool is that?" 

Oversized greens are often controversial for cost, parallel fairways or connecting fairways for safety (I lost a cool job by proposing 1 and 10 mimic Inverness in Toledo as the committee couldn't get past the safety potential)  Enough people know blind shots are bad that they must have a visible option or be well marked.  And, whenever I do a very wide fairway, with hums in one half as the subtle hazard, it only takes a few years for those to be mowed back to the more "logical" flat area only.

I have gotten a lot of comments about unusual holes, greens, tees as "they are different from the rest of the holes" and my answer of "isn't that the point?" doesn't always set well.

People really are afraid of change, and that does seem to drive a lot of the controversy.