Not My Idea - it's Don Mahaffey's

[Peter Pallotta]

So we're stumbling along discussing this and that and the wily old veteran drops this into a thread, seemingly apropos of nothing:

"Famous GCAs all have a macro look. When you don't have great land, some of the micro work can close the gap.The macro vs micro bias is very real."

If nothing else, it's eye catching and pithy -- though I'm almost certain it is more than that. Yes, but what does it mean? Is it true? Does it explain anything? The Greta Garbo of gca isn't saying, retreating instead to some mansion in Texas where he can be alone to ruminate over irrigation schematics.

Any thoughts? No numerical short-hand, please - actual thoughts, conveyed with words and sentences, as would befit rational animals with a modicum of self-awareness.

Peter

[Steve Lang]

  its finally down to the 80's in South TX, and really nice macro golfing weather... DM is probably out playing and enjoying the outdoors, ... though he could be out under shelter, waiting out a micro-burst thunderstorm

[Don Mahaffey]

Steve,
It was gorgeous today. Lower temps and no humidity. I was outside.

Peter,
I'll try to explain my thoughts a little better. But just please know I'm struggling to clearly communicate what I'm thinking. I'm not organized yet. But you posted this thread and I didn't want to ignore it, so here is what I have now.

A while back I tried to get a design based discussion going on order vs chaos. It really went nowhere because I just didn't explain my point of view very well; or most are just not interested in that type of conversation. My basic point was we are educated to be orderly. To think orderly. And working in an orderly manner is considered proper and professional. So our golf course reflect order.

I think the same can be said about having a macro focus in golf design. We frame, open or close long views, mostly deal with long flowing lines, worry about backdrops and features lining up. We don't worry so much about what is right in front of us, we look to the horizon and we design and build until we have the look we want. If we have a nice natural vista or back drop we make sure we direct our players to look that way. So macro dominates. Makes sense as people like expansiveness.

When we had a poor site, we try and hide the blight with macro design work. And then we build macro influenced golf.
Macro thinking is considered good, professional. Our big thinkers have a "global" view. To think from a micro point of view is consider fragmented, unorganized, "chunking" is a non-flattering term sometimes used. I know people tire of me talking about Wolf Point, but on some of the holes there we started small and just carried it all the way through. And now 8 years later, those holes are holding up. They're good golf holes.

I'm looking for more chaos, more micro influenced work. I appreciate that GCAs are trained to think with a macro bent, I get it. But that macro approach has also driven costs to insane levels. And I don't think it always makes the golf better.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I am trying to reconcile your concept here with all of the Donald Ross courses I've seen the past few days.

Ross was very good at macro [routing] and micro [contouring].  Some of these courses I've seen have more or less of the micro, but they all had the macro really well covered ... until people planted a million trees around them to stuff it up.  Some are now recovering, others not.  But all the tree planting shifted the focus back to the micro, and the micro is generally good enough that the members have trouble thinking about what's wrong with the macro.

I've also seen a couple of Travis courses ... one was all about the micro, as his courses usually are, but the other was all about the macro, the micro was not much like the other courses of his that I've seen.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - thanks much, I really appreciate you trying to explain this -- especially as you don't feel ready yet. I knew there was something important here. I won't dig into the substance of it just yet; I can't, as I too am struggling to get a picture in my mind of what you're describing. But I will say this (with the proviso that I am not putting words into your mouth, as I readily admit I'm just guessing): you seem to be describing a process of gca that is more akin to poetry than to prose, that focuses on the beauty and power of "words" and "images" more so than the meaning and coherence of "sentences" and "paragraphs", on the belief that if those words/images are chosen well enough, a truer/deeper meaning and coherence will emerge almost of its own accord. Great food for thought.

Peter

[Steve Lang]

So is a green a "period" or "exclamation" macro beginning or micro end?


p.s. Don, Ditto for the weather in the Woodlands, more of the same tomorrow!

[Don Mahaffey]

Tom,
I think you are on to something in that it is a balance of the two that works best, and also it seems to be that micro was more important to designers from an earlier period. I've only read descriptions and seen photos of his work, but Travis seems to be a very good example of a GCA who used felt a lot of micro was needed for good golf.
Modern design technique seems to be macro based and I think there is not enough emphasis on the micro to achieve the right balance.

Peter, It's trite to say a course lacks soul or character, but a total focus on the macro does feel sterile. I like your post a lot, in that I think you are feeling what I'm trying to say. It is just not that easy to define, just as it is hard to define how much chaos should be in a golf course.   

[Tom_Doak]

Modern design technique seems to be macro based and I think there is not enough emphasis on the micro to achieve the right balance.

It's the JPEG era, man.  If it doesn't show up in a photograph, most raters can't be bothered with it, so most designers aren't, either.

[Jason Topp]

This thread makes me think of playing the Farm Course at Greensboro Country Club last year.  I believe Donald Steele was the architect and the thing that struck me most was his restrained use of bunkers.  Most greens seemed to have one.  Fairway bunkers also seemed pretty limited.  It was so different from most highly rated courses and particularly jarring in comparison to Old Town in the afternoon.

The lack of anything about the course that really caught your attention was a bit disorienting and I remember thinking that even if this course was designed perfectly, with all sorts of clever strategies associated with slopes and hollows and the like, it did not seem likely I would pick that up in one round. 

Now I cannot remember much of the course other than missing a 10 foot putt on 17 to keep my match with Cory Lewis alive. 

I don't know if Steele got the "macro" or "micro" right on that course but it was a striking counter-example to so many courses that are filled with showy bunkers and water and the like.

[Ben Sims]

Don,

Great to see you here. Been insanely busy this year with things that have caused Tom to not get his medallion back for quite awhile now.

Upfront and on point, I like this thread. I was going to chime in with some meta-fact and TD just killed my post with the JPEG comment. It has to sell to be good you know? Macro makes good photos. Well tied-in green surrounds that accentuate play don't photograph as well as a big white bunker in the wrong place.

I also think the concept of convexity vs. concavity comes into play when we focus on the macro. People get intimidated by large landscapes when their eye isn't driven in a particular direction. They like concavity where their eye, or ball, is always forced back to the center. Convexity is imprecise and chaotic. It demands creativity on an intimate, what's-in-front-of-me-now kind of way.

[Tim_Weiman]

Excellent thread.

[Mike Nuzzo]

 .

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree with the little to and fro between Don and Tom completely...

[Sean_A]

Don or whomever

In trying to get a handle on the concepts, what are some good examples of

macro design
micro design
well balanced macro/micro design

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Reading this thread has caused me to re-read George Waters splendid book "Sand and Golf'.

There's a description on p43-44 of the natural 'washboard' effect and how modern construction techniques makes replicating it difficult.

atb

[James Bennett]

Excellent thread.

Plus one. 

I can't add to the thread,so I will shut up and observe.

[JC Urbina]

PPallotta,

It takes several encounters for someone to experience the small design features that many of the really good golf courses have.  You can't see them in a picture, they don't always reveal themselves in one round of golf, they are not on every hole and sometimes they are totally random and not part of an intended design feature, more abstract in their presentation.

Keep looking for them, it may take years to find one on a course that you have been playing for your entire life. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Wow, thanks - really good thread, and thanks much to JC and KBM.

Don - again, I'm writing what your words bring to mind in me, and I know not necessarily what you mean to describe. That said, I think you're sketching out a radical approach/vision. In many areas, I find that I tend to approach things from a macro and not micro level --  I think in terms of big and overarching ideas and theories (and probably not enough of the day to day and practical realilties); and I tend to have "world views" and "ideals" about what, say, art can and should be achieve. In my own creative work, it's the "theme" that captures my attention and drives the work, and then the "characters" and "dialougue" and "action" seem to emerge naturally out of that. And -- to get to the point -- in gca, it's the over-riding "principles" and "philosophies" of a given approach/architect that I like to see made manifest, and that I think are key, and that have the most appeal to me. And so, my bias is clearly towards the macro: i.e. tackle the big expanse, I'd tend to say, create the overall routing and aesthetic and ethos and feel, stay true to one's architectural principles/philosophies, and let the little things (the micro) fall as they may. And a lot of great courses have been created this way -- and yet you seem to be suggesting that there is another way, e.g. to use the anology: create interesting characters with snappy and insightful dialougue and have them acting dramatically, and the "theme" will emerge on its own and of its own accord....and may surprise everyone.

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

This discussion is way beyond me, but I think I understand something; if I start a thread w/ Don or Peter or Tom's name in the title, it's sure to be a hit!

(interesting discussion, btw...I'm not smart enough to add to it, so, I'll just sit back and learn)

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

 

But of course, and as is your way Joe, you are being far too modest and self-effacing. From what I know of the work you have done, for yourself and others, you are an expert on (among other things) the "micro" of it all - how that works and, more importantly, how to achieve the micros ideally suited to playing golf, whether by hand or shovel or bulldozer.  What would happen if you designed a course 'one foot at a time', moving along and shaping and reacting to the land/site, finding what you find (for a green site say) almost by accident, or at least as a result not of an over-riding plan but of that foot by foot appraoch? That's way too simplistic, I know, and again maybe not at all what Don is trying to describe.....but I know that you know way more than you think you know!!

Peter