Can an Architect be Too Clever?

[Paul Gray]

If an architect designs a course which, even if you throw a crash course in GCA at every player on the planet, only a handful of aficionados are ever going to 'get,' is it a commendable nod to purity or a smug insider pat on the back for knowing something others don't?

If you're never going to tempt the average golfer to do anything other than aim straight down the middle, can it really be an excellent course?

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - a good and interesting question, worthy of discussion (especially the last part). But just to say: I do not believe there is, was or ever will be even one single working architect, living or dead, professional or amateur, either drunk or stone-cold sober, early in his/her career or late, with his own money or someone else's, married or unmarried/recently divorced, right-brained or left-brained, a lover of earth-movers or the purist of minimalists, wearing a tweed jacket and plus fours or chinos and some nerdy sneakers, who has ever considered, even for just a split second, building a golf course that is "too smart" for the general population and that only aficionados would get. Such a thing is, I'd say, a literal impossibility. It is not in their DNA.
Peter 

[Carl Rogers]

I am wondering what will be a consensus review on Sweeten's Cove .... after 2 nine hole plays at the Dixie Cup, I am conflicted  ... part of me says they way over did it and part of me wants to go back and play some more.  If a golfer could get enough plays and enough local knowledge, scout out the cup locations prior to the round, there probably is a way to go about a round very strategically ... but at present, that is beyond me


By nature, I am more partial to subtlety.

[John Connolly]

No great course is appreciated only by the cognoscenti. They are great because just the opposite is true. The golfing illiterate would walk in awe through the journey of Pine Valley.

[cary lichtenstein]

Yes and no. I think Arthur Hill gets too clever but I love quirk

[Jay Mickle]

Was Mile Strantz too clever? Some probably think so but he was just challenging the golfer to trust his swing in an uncertain environment.

[Jim Nugent]

I am wondering what will be a consensus review on Sweeten's Cove .... after 2 nine hole plays at the Dixie Cup, I am conflicted  ... part of me says they way over did it and part of me wants to go back and play some more.  If a golfer could get enough plays and enough local knowledge, scout out the cup locations prior to the round, there probably is a way to go about a round very strategically ... but at present, that is beyond me

I've read that many people react the same way to TOC after their first round.  Didn't some golf luminary say words to the effect that anyone who claims he 'gets' TOC after one play is a liar or a fool?   

[Ian Andrew]

They can certainly try and do too much on one project.
Is that "too clever?"


I've seen a couple of courses where a company produced what I would term "Disneyland Golf." They threw in everything "cool" they ever seen in one over the top layout. It was how I thought Disneyland would present all of golf design in one ride.

[Paul Gray]

They can certainly try and do too much on one project.
Is that "too clever?"


I've seen a couple of courses where a company produced what I would term "Disneyland Golf." They threw in everything "cool" they ever seen in one over the top layout. It was how I thought Disneyland would present all of golf design in one ride.

Rather than too much, I was thinking perhaps about doing too little. However brilliant the subtlety might be, it's surely pointless if no one ever realises it's there.

[George Pazin]

Didn't some golf luminary say words to the effect that anyone who claims he 'gets' TOC after one play is a liar or a fool?

I'm inclined to think anyone who claims to get any course after one play is both...

[cary lichtenstein]

They can certainly try and do too much on one project.
Is that "too clever?"


I've seen a couple of courses where a company produced what I would term "Disneyland Golf." They threw in everything "cool" they ever seen in one over the top layout. It was how I thought Disneyland would present all of golf design in one ride.

Rather than too much, I was thinking perhaps about doing too little. However brilliant the subtlety might be, it's surely pointless if no one ever realises it's there.

I must admit that "brilliant subliety" is something I have never seen, i know it's described as minimilism, and I've listened to and read tons about it, but I think it is a form of "aloofness or snobbery" that some claim they have this vision when they just hepp praise on the favorite  architects on this site.


If you look at Pine Valley, Augusta or any of the truly great courses, subtlety is not one of their strong suits. The 15 hole at Cypress Point...

[Paul Gray]

Cary,

Minimalism doesn't have to be particularly subtle. The dunes of Ireland aren't particularly subtle but many ODG's designed what we would now call minimalist courses on them.

[Ian Andrew]

Rather than too much, I was thinking perhaps about doing too little. However brilliant the subtlety might be, it's surely pointless if no one ever realises it's there.

Everyone wants to know what's next.


Ran said we need another Harbour Town.


Everything has become so damn "visual" these days, perhaps what might finally catch the attention of some is something far more understated and subtle. It's never pointless to do less. But it is a hard way to attract any attention unless someone is looking really hard at what your doing. Great golf is not how it looks - though that does play a role in generating  emotions - but how it plays that matters most. That's why  love Royal North Devon and others would be left perplexed.


But alas, too many decisions on where to play are based upon photos, so subtle takes a lot of time and patience to daw the player in. That's why very few even try.

[Mark Pavy]

Great golf is not how it looks - though that does play a role in generating  emotions - but how it plays that matters most.

Are you talking about the course or the golfer?

[Paul Gray]

Rather than too much, I was thinking perhaps about doing too little. However brilliant the subtlety might be, it's surely pointless if no one ever realises it's there.

Everyone wants to know what's next.


Ran said we need another Harbour Town.


Everything has become so damn "visual" these days, perhaps what might finally catch the attention of some is something far more understated and subtle. It's never pointless to do less. But it is a hard way to attract any attention unless someone is looking really hard at what your doing. Great golf is not how it looks - though that does play a role in generating  emotions - but how it plays that matters most. That's why  love Royal North Devon and others would be left perplexed.


But alas, too many decisions on where to play are based upon photos, so subtle takes a lot of time and patience to daw the player in. That's why very few even try.

Now this gets to the heart of the question. You mention people not bothering to learn about subtle. By my question really is, or certainly one aspect of it, whether there is such a thing as too subtle? And if not, is it at least possible that sometimes, even if the subtlety is appreciated, it is so subtle that there is no real marginal benefit to using it? Does that then not just become an accidental bluff?

[Sean_A]

Rather than too much, I was thinking perhaps about doing too little. However brilliant the subtlety might be, it's surely pointless if no one ever realises it's there.

Everyone wants to know what's next.


Ran said we need another Harbour Town.


Everything has become so damn "visual" these days, perhaps what might finally catch the attention of some is something far more understated and subtle. It's never pointless to do less. But it is a hard way to attract any attention unless someone is looking really hard at what your doing. Great golf is not how it looks - though that does play a role in generating  emotions - but how it plays that matters most. That's why  love Royal North Devon and others would be left perplexed.


But alas, too many decisions on where to play are based upon photos, so subtle takes a lot of time and patience to daw the player in. That's why very few even try.

Ian


So much of renovation work is about the visuals (and some archies are making a living at this) that it seems rather obvious that the aesthetics are deemed just as important as how a course plays...rightly or wrongly. I generally agree that aesthetics do matter, but I think some subdued architecture can be just as attractive as the heather top bunkers of Sunningdale.  Unfortunately or not, most golfers don't agree me. I know this from comments about Burnham.  The usual stick is the middle of the course is bland when what folks really mean is the middle of the course is less attractive than other parts of the course.  I know this section is architecturally just as interesting as the dunes holes.


Ciao

[Tim Gerrish]

All courses have layers of detail... some are more visually and aesthetically bold than others.  Subtle nuances, especially near and adjacent to the putting surface, are sometimes more readily apparent or may take the player several times to recognize.  AND it all is reflective of a players skill and experience.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Of course an architect can be too clever (among other things). That is why restraint is so important.

[Norbert P]

If an architect designs a course which, even if you throw a crash course in GCA at every player on the planet, only a handful of aficionados are ever going to 'get,' is it a commendable nod to purity or a smug insider pat on the back for knowing something others don't?

If you're never going to tempt the average golfer to do anything other than aim straight down the middle, can it really be an excellent course?

People are affected by different enlightenments, or "gets", catalyzed by various sources of stimuli. Some like natural, some enjoy the engineered contrivances,  some the fastest golf cart, etc.   I'd love to get a crash course in gca, btw.  Who'd teach that class? .
 
 

[jeffwarne]

Rather than too much, I was thinking perhaps about doing too little. However brilliant the subtlety might be, it's surely pointless if no one ever realises it's there.

Everyone wants to know what's next.


Ran said we need another Harbour Town.


Everything has become so damn "visual" these days, perhaps what might finally catch the attention of some is something far more understated and subtle. It's never pointless to do less. But it is a hard way to attract any attention unless someone is looking really hard at what your doing. Great golf is not how it looks - though that does play a role in generating  emotions - but how it plays that matters most. That's why  love Royal North Devon and others would be left perplexed.


But alas, too many decisions on where to play are based upon photos, so subtle takes a lot of time and patience to draw the player in. That's why very few even try.

+1 great stuff


a classic example is a green open in front that slopes away, or is tilted one direction or the other (anything but toward the center of the fairway.
Throw in a semiwide to wide "fairway" (could also be maintained as light rough), and you have an interesting hole hole that requires thought and execution to excel, yet is playable for the handicapper and needs no eye candy to be great.


Dunfanaghy is the poster child for this, combining subtle and yes occasionally even pedestrian with a bit of spectacular, which in my mind is the perfect mix.

[Tom_Doak]

a classic example is a green open in front that slopes away, or is tilted one direction or the other (anything but toward the center of the fairway.
Throw in a semiwide to wide "fairway" (could also be maintained as light rough), and you have an interesting hole hole that requires thought and execution to excel, yet is playable for the handicapper and needs no eye candy to be great.

Dunfanaghy Garden City Golf Club is the poster child for this