Don't Design From a Position of Fear

[V_Halyard]

Most interesting thread. Perhaps some of this ties to early instruction. Teach beginners and kids that slope is part of the fun and the challenge. For consideration, not many people would pay to ride a flat roller coaster.

[Peter Pallotta]

...I based a course north of Toronto called Ballantrae G&CC on it.
It's got wild greens, but plenty of width, lots of short grass around greens for recovery and only 40 bunkers...

Perfect example.
I've mentioned this before: years ago with a group of golfing friends who never thought about/discussed gca, we played many courses all around the GTA.  There was a 5 handicapper, a 10, a 15 and me, and to a person we all loved Ballantrae -- even though I don't remember any of us ever noting/commenting the quality of the greens or the lack of bunkers or the short grass or the width.

In other words, we knew we liked it very much, but we didn't know why.

That experience has always informed my sense that "the average golfer" actually does appreciate top flight gca, but simply doesn't have the language (and/or the interest) to explain it to himself or to others.   

Which is to say: architects should give the average golfer a chance to fall in love with something (i.e. a course not designed from a position of fear) instead of being guided by a whole bunch of language and ideas and prohibitions that the architect knows/believes but about which the average golfer couldn't care less

P

[Ira Fishman]

Peter makes a great point that goes beyond just great greens.  When I played Yale in college, I had no idea who MacDonald and Raynor were or what a template hole was let alone the different templates.  I just knew immediately it was an awesome course.  Fast forward to age 56 when I thought I knew something and then I played Lahinch; I realized I would never have a golf vocabulary adequate to describe the course.  On the other hand, I know the economics of golf at least in the US limits the ability of architects to have no fear.  We had eight Americans on the Irish trip; six of the group did not like the links courses that much in part because they were not "green", and several had Old Head as their favorite ahead of Ballybunion, Lahinch, and Waterville.

[Joe Zucker]

Most interesting thread. Perhaps some of this ties to early instruction. Teach beginners and kids that slope is part of the fun and the challenge. For consideration, not many people would pay to ride a flat roller coaster.

Vaughn, I bet good instruction could go a long way in developing a love of good architecture.  But I wonder if the typical range rat kid with a gorgeous swing might actually have less appreciation for what we love here? I can see that type of player valuing fairness and soft greens because of the type of game they play.  However, if you have a teacher that shows you how to play the game rather than swing the club, that sounds like a recipe to appreciating the great courses even more.  Hopefully there are enough Harvey Penick's out there now.

[Peter Pallotta]

You know, Ira, when you mention your experience at Lahinch, I find myself wondering what gca would be like if everyone with a stake in the game had simply remained silent, i.e. if no architects or writers or experts or discussion boards or tv analysts or magazines had ever talked about anything related to golf course design and maintenance.


What would the so-called "average golfer" enjoy and appreciate if none of them/us had ever heard about sandy soils, or of how brown is better/worse than green, or about dramatic sites or the importance of contoured greens or of fast and firm conditions? What would the average golfer 'know' (as we did back then, not with words but with feeling and intuition) if no one ever tried to teach us anything about strategy or shot values, or what courses were great and which weren't, or about what golf was supposed to be?


I have a feeling that if this "what if" scenario had been a reality, the vast majority of golfers would be having exactly the same experience you had at Yale and that my friends and I had at Ballantrae. 


When we first played Ballantrae we had no idea that sea-side/links courses were supposed to be great, but neither did we know that flat almost featureless sites (like the one that Ballantrae was built on) were inherently worse, unless you could make a Garden City out of them. We played a lot of courses back then, some of them old classics but most of them the latest designs by then then top Canadian designers, some of them on dramatic properties, some of them immaculately maintained, some of them contoured to within an inch of their lives.  None of us back then considered any of that either good or bad, it simply "was".  And in that context, Ballantrae was the only one I could remember that we all, unanimously, thought was wonderful.


We have, in my opinion, for way too long confused/conflated what people "say" with what they actually "experience"....and the dominant voices in the game (the aforementioned architects and writers and experts and analysts) have only driven and encouraged and reinforced this tendency -- mostly, I think, because they make money out of words while the average golfer doesn't.


Peter         

[Thomas Dai]

Most interesting thread. Perhaps some of this ties to early instruction. Teach beginners and kids that slope is part of the fun and the challenge. For consideration, not many people would pay to ride a flat roller coaster.

Another reason why there should be more municipal Himalayas type putting greens and wickedly contoured pitch-n-putt courses around.

For example, the limited number of photos posted about the Bad Little Nine make it look wonderful, although I imagine it would be a bit to difficult for novices/begineers etc.

Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

I've got a book by a Japanese architect [Shunsuke Kato] where he describes doing that on purpose on a tournament course in Japan.  He said he built the first two greens so you would over-read the break, and then you get to the third and it breaks MORE than you think, so after that, you will have doubt in your mind the rest of the way.  [I wonder how he gets you to putt from exactly where he wants, but, whatever.] 

I have that book, too. Will re-read it.


I have tried, in a general way to do ti, but have never measured, surveyed, or whatever to see if my plan came out, nor have I talked to any golfers who noticed....of course, if fooled, how would they?


Basically, I try to vary my putting green slopes from 1.6 to 2.2% in cup areas on different greens, thinking the golfers will never get a read from other greens to keep it on the lip, or whatever. Again, I may be the only guy in the world who knows they are there.


That said, I had a client from a muni course call me out to their course. It seems the locals just can't read the greens. I really didn't do much, and its a flattish site.  Many foolers come in the hills where the overall contours make the flatter greens look as if they go back into the hill sometimes.  The ones he showed me were on very slight slopes and a few green areas did drain against the general land slope. That was all I could figure.


I have heard many golfers say Fazio's greens are hard to read, but again, when they show me the areas they find difficult to read, I don't see a pattern as to how Faz purposely did it.  If someone can explain the "trick" to this apparently dumb architect, like Ross Perot, I am all ears!

[Bill_McBride]

That said, the modern era has produced many more "7500 yard courses with 150 bunkers" that are not great, than "courses with great and difficult greens" that are not great.

Spot On! 

I would actually be interested in a true survey of just how many of out 15,000 US courses meet that criteria, or even how many of the 5,000 built in the true modern era actually are like that.


I doubt the percentage is really very high.  The only architect I can think of that approaches 150 bunkers per design is Steve Smyers, and Gary Kern once (at Purgatory).  Granted, some Florida courses have gotten acres of waste bunkers to save turf and irrigation, and maybe they count as 5-6 each in some minds.


As to the original OP, well, maybe I do design from a sense of fear or responsibility.  As Eric L says, maybe we have enough of the great courses, but need more average ones, at least for everyday play. 


I think one of my first posts here alluded to this.  I love talking great architecture, and I love the occasional chance to really strive for it.  Most of my clients don't.....they want function, playability, etc., and from what I see, most retail golfers do, too!


Sorry to interrupt the discussion......carry on!

Hey, there are a few crazy-ish greens at the Wilderness!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think a few is the right amount.....when I played up there this fall with a group including my son's former college golfers, they seemed to think the contours were all pretty difficult.....that surprised me a bit.


Of course, not being architecture buffs, they were sort of amazed at the Biarritz, among others.

[Carl Rogers]

I like to compare threads to specific courses.

I hope at some point you might tee it up a Ballyhack, where the course has a series of such difficult awkward approach shots to very small segments of the green at very high green speeds.  Fear Factor is a big part of the course.
Some have compared Ballyhack to Tobacco Road as being similar.  I disagree for the most part.  TR has a relatively few do or die (and no other option) shots.  TR can be be played very strategically.  Not so at Ballyhack.

[Randy Thompson]

If your lucky enough to work with native sand and not spend 30,000 plus for usga greens, you can go big and broad. I have been trying to créate greens that depending on the pin location can be classified as player frienndly or easy and other locations that can be catagorized as brutal and difficult. In a course where we recently finished three holes, we had the authorities out last week to rate and slope the course and it will be interesting their findings. So many different tee`s and angles and different pin locations can really change how the hole plays. Its a new concept for Chile and a lot of players hate them. They just have the mentality of I want to execute and be rewarded for a good shot, I don`t want to think. A lot of discontent cmes from not having enugh thatch built up yet to recieve properly. I feel like i over came the fear factor and have created three of my top five greens in my career. All three maybe softened in the near future as we will be polling the membership in the next six weeks two or three times. I will try a letter to the membership trying to educate those that can be educated and hopefully generate a little more support. Conclusions; over come the fear factor and make sure your golfing public has some idea of what is a good designed green. Imo a good green and a good golf course will present challenges and oportunities to excell. But, it has been a brutal experience and I have taken a ton of shit!

[Peter Pallotta]

I liked the thread title because you can replace the word "design" with other words and the advice is still applicable, e.g. "don't play music from a place/position of fear", "don't drive from a position of fear", "don't raise your children from a place of fear" etc.   


The thing is, I think there are usually two types of fear, conscious and unconscious -- that which we experience and can at least try to deal with, and that of which lurks underneath the surface of our minds and thus affects our behaviour/choices unawares.


Adults learn to at least grapple (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) with the former; it's the latter than hangs us up. I assume it must be the case with architects. Saying "I'm a little afraid that this green is a bit too severe" is one thing; feeling a gnawing but diffused sense of dread that, if you consciously heard it, would say "Oh my god, I'm gonna fall flat on my face with this course and never work again" is another.


My guess is that this second type of fear is what's at work when architects (or writers or musicians) repeat themselves over and over again, or who follow the tracks in the sand that others have laid down before them.   


 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah, that second one troubles me more!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - I don't want to disparage modern-day architects, because I believe that as a 'class' of professionals you all do exemplary and always good and often outstanding work. But thinking of the great classic courses, it is striking how many of those were designed by men who didn't have to deal (as the rest of us do) with that second type of fear -- either because they were wealthy and/or because they were 'amateurs' and/or because they did their work before the profession had become formalized and the stakes got so high.
Peter 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


On the other hand, Ron Whitten searched the Tufts archives, and found the same par 3 hole on 73 different courses....so the ones who did it as a business were more susceptible to mass production, perhaps aided by less travel and less media.


Even the wealthiest amateur architect (CBM) made copycat holes a thing......and the select others really didn't do enough work to get repetitive.


To be truthful, my biggest (and proven to be well founded) fear was that I would never have such a huge portfolio that I was forced to repeat myself out of sheer volume of work, a la, RTJ and Ross.  And at 50 courses, I have done better than most of my brethren.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks. As I hope I've mentioned before, I think you should be justly very proud of your body of work; there are many (often silly) ways to 'keep score' in one's life, but being able to do for so long and so successfully something you love sure is at the top of the list


Interesting about CBM -- I wonder if his repetitions/templates came not out of fear but out of the complete opposite, i.e. a towering and unshakable confidence that what he believed was best in golf was in fact the best! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete,


I think the latter, no doubt.  Although, it might start a separate discussion.  While perhaps Tom Doak celebrates the iconoclast, most architects, then and now, start thinking in terms of what the conceptually best golf course would look like, in terms of par, length, sequence, hole type. Personally, I am hoping its possible to decide, for example, I think (drawing from another thread....) one or two big rolling greens per course is about the right amount, and yet, never duplicate that too closely, or duplicate those greens exactly.


In other words, adopt broad concepts and ideals, but not copy details. Frankly, from site to site, unless dead flat or moving a million yards of earth, its easier and better to adapt a concept rather than replicate it anyway.


Thanks for the comments.  As I have often said, like almost any other profession, the base line judge is whether you fed your family all those years.  And all of our working  lives, we are basically a little corporation, hoping to earn enough by age 65 to retire and not eat dog food.  While others have done better, to be sure, I can comfortably retire now if I wished.  And the best part is, while I could retire....I don't want to! I still enjoy the work.


Cheers.

[Kalen Braley]

I mentioned this on the other thread as well...


..but how does Pebble Beach fit into this equation?  Tiny greens with a healthy amount of slope, (sometimes deadly).  I wonder why more smaller greens haven't been built to combat bomb and gouge?


P.S.  To answer the above question that was posed...Its been a number of years now since I played it, but I don't recall the green on 16 at CPC being anything impressive or noteworthy...even though everything else certainly is.  But i may just be fuzy on the details.

[Tom_Doak]

I liked the thread title because you can replace the word "design" with other words and the advice is still applicable, e.g. "don't play music from a place/position of fear", "don't drive from a position of fear", "don't raise your children from a place of fear" etc.   


The thing is, I think there are usually two types of fear, conscious and unconscious -- that which we experience and can at least try to deal with, and that of which lurks underneath the surface of our minds and thus affects our behaviour/choices unawares.


Adults learn to at least grapple (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) with the former; it's the latter than hangs us up. I assume it must be the case with architects. Saying "I'm a little afraid that this green is a bit too severe" is one thing; feeling a gnawing but diffused sense of dread that, if you consciously heard it, would say "Oh my god, I'm gonna fall flat on my face with this course and never work again" is another.


My guess is that this second type of fear is what's at work when architects (or writers or musicians) repeat themselves over and over again, or who follow the tracks in the sand that others have laid down before them.

Peter:


Thanks.  I picked the title because so much of everything in the mainstream media revolves around fear ... all our recent political coverage, of course, but also the teasers for the evening news for the last 20 years ["Could the season's most popular Christmas toy kill your child?  Film at eleven!"].  And, of course, many many parents have raised their children with fear as a guiding force, sometimes with the help of the Church.


Jeff and I come from different places because I've never once worried about "feeding my family all those years."  My goal wasn't to "be" a golf course architect; it was to help create great golf courses like the ones I really admired.  [And if you think about it, many of the old dead guys never dreamed that golf course architecture would be much more than a hobby for them.]  That's encouraged boldness [and political incorrectness] from the very start.


There is no question that C.B. Macdonald stuck to his templates because he thought he knew best [and because Seth Raynor didn't know enough about golf to question them].  But Jeff's point is a good one -- most of the old architects didn't get to the point of repeating themselves ad nauseum, because they didn't build so many courses.  Personally, I think everyone should have to quit after they get to, say, 50 designs, and let the next generation have a chance. 


How many did you say you've done now, Jeff?

[Mike_Young]

Jeff and I come from different places because I've never once worried about "feeding my family all those years."  My goal wasn't to "be" a golf course architect; it was to help create great golf courses like the ones I really admired.  [And if you think about it, many of the old dead guys never dreamed that golf course architecture would be much more than a hobby for them.]  That's encouraged boldness [and political incorrectness] from the very start.


There is no question that C.B. Macdonald stuck to his templates because he thought he knew best [and because Seth Raynor didn't know enough about golf to question them].  But Jeff's point is a good one -- most of the old architects didn't get to the point of repeating themselves ad nauseum, because they didn't build so many courses.  Personally, I think everyone should have to quit after they get to, say, 50 designs, and let the next generation have a chance. 


How many did you say you've done now, Jeff?

You bring up some points here that I have always questioned.  One:  I don't know how many of the ODG's actually got into architecture thinking it would be their sole means of support or that it would be their main support.
 
Secondly, when you mention quitting after 50 designs, that means entirely different things for different architects based on how they work.  For someone like yourself or myself who builds more on site, 50 is a much larger number than someone who works with more specific plans, specs etc.  Two totally different things.   I've seen some associate types who have supposedly designed 5 of their own who know zero about getting it built...just specs and drawings...

Thirdly, templates...many of the modern sigs have their own basic templates even though they may not be the classics...I heard some of the big sig contrators talk about how the sig archie can phone in " hey build green #7 from course A on the 15th hole of course B"...That's one reason the "chosen" contractors for some of the big pro sigs can charge so much..

[Jeff_Brauer]

These threads have me thinking I will call Ron Whitten, since he has the most (I think) readily available data base, to see just how many courses various architects have done.  That in itself would be an interesting article to many.


I personally believe that the amateur sportsman idea promoted here has been over glorified and is a small, very small, percentage of anyone whoever built golf courses. 


Yes, CBM, but no to Raynor and other associates.
Thomas was probably a true rich, amateur architect
Hugh Wilson at Merion, but did he accept commissions for the few others he designed? (Mike C would know)
From the recent threads, obviously Mac did it for fees.
Tillie, I think, only took up the antique thing when his architecture fees dropped.
Ross was commercial from the get go, and spawned many associates, etc.
Bendelow was paid by Spalding, Langford, Moreau and others paid by contractors.
In fact, all the guys who really built those courses got paid.


It's sort of like a jury I once served on, where the lawyer kept asking the witnesses if they were paid to be here today....finally, the impatient judge said, (I get paid, you get paid, the witnesses get paid to be here, only the jury is required to serve for peanuts!)  Look around, everyone needs to get paid, but it really shouldn't sully the craft.


Anyway, you get the idea.  One thing in that generation, they probably were less likely to have working wives, which has been an aid to a modern generation of architects going out on their own, having that second paycheck while they build up their businesses.  Think about that...maybe women's rights movement was a democratizing factor in getting more talent into our biz!  At least it counterbalanced the modern version of rich guys getting into design....the Tour Pro.


Tom, when someone dies and makes you the King of Golf, I will quit at 50 designs for you.  Until then, I trust that things will work out (for the most part) and the next generation will figure a way to enter the business and survive, without Soviet Style central planning.  Frankly, I don't remember anyone purposely getting out of our way!

[Mike_Young]

These threads have me thinking I will call Ron Whitten, since he has the most (I think) readily available data base, to see just how many courses various architects have done.  That in itself would be an interesting article to many.


I personally believe that the amateur sportsman idea promoted here has been over glorified and is a small, very small, percentage of anyone whoever built golf courses. 


Yes, CBM, but no to Raynor and other associates.
Thomas was probably a true rich, amateur architect
Hugh Wilson at Merion, but did he accept commissions for the few others he designed? (Mike C would know)
From the recent threads, obviously Mac did it for fees.
Tillie, I think, only took up the antique thing when his architecture fees dropped.
Ross was commercial from the get go, and spawned many associates, etc.
Bendelow was paid by Spalding, Langford, Moreau and others paid by contractors.
In fact, all the guys who really built those courses got paid.

Jeff,
You are probably right on the guys above but a lot of courses were built around the country.  Many more than the handful of gys you mention above.  Plus when you see the fees some charged and how many courses they did it would have been a very tough living.  That's why even today I see it hard to tell a young person to get in the business unless they are doing construction on top of it.  Happy New Year....

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


My observation about the old dead guys was made from the perspective of when they started their careers.  I know Tillinghast and MacKenzie wound up being commercial, but I don't think either of them would have thought that in 1910, and I think it impacted their early work ... and as you say, once you get going on something, there's no reason to stop.



P.S.  I was kidding regarding your # of courses, but only partly.  I just shake my head at the number of "old undead guys" who are still out there grinding away to take another renovation job away from somebody younger [and then probably turn it over to an unnamed associate, after keeping most of the fee for themselves].  I know, "it's a free market," but the free market does not always produce optimal results for the future of mankind.


P.P.S.  I've done 36 or 37 courses.  I will retire when I get to 50 courses, if I even do.
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


I agree the profession evolved a lot from 1910 to 1929 or so, and kept on going.  It was a side deal for many pros (Ross included) but they soon found it was a lot more time consuming and complicated to do right as a part time job (the complicated part has just kept on going, too)


As to course numbers, that gets complicated, too. I was revising my list for a brochure submittal the other day, and like most archies, it is inflated a bit, by including nine hole additions, nine hole par 3's, etc.  For regulation courses, it is less, similar to yours.  I would argue like the Dickens that some of mine shouldn't count, if you actually got someone to implement that rule, and I bet if you had a great opportunity when right at the 50 course limit, I can imagine you out there saying the Sheep Ranch shouldn't count!


As to my Soviet Central Planning comment, I actually am a great believer in the randomness of the free market ultimately making the right selections over a small band of gurus who think they can pick the next genius.  We would have never had Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, if the government (or some governing body) got to shut them down from working in their garages.  For that matter, the British system of selecting schools for kids, because they supposedly knew better, probably even endangered artists like the Beatles. 


Some sort of system would have probably kept Pete Dye out of architecture, too.  Wouldn't be hard to imagine some design overseer declare that we didn't need an insurance salesman building golf courses when there were so many "qualified" architects around.  You get the idea. Not to mention, the first qualifier as a gca is to have the gumption to be a gca, no?  You might think you have a talented shaper ready to go, but if he isn't self motivated like you were, he just isn't going to cut it, despite a nice push out the door.


Lastly, while I agree some old guys are doing it just for the paycheck, I have been financially prudent (you know, the old Midwest save a bit each week) but never particularly highly money motivated (I took a personality test, I can prove it!)  I just followed the advice Art Hills gave me when offering me a job years ago - "Be sincere and do good work and it will work out okay."


As I mentioned on the other thread, I keep trying to move forward in my designs.  If I was truly giving them "a reverse 59-A green" I probably would hang it up.  But, when the clearing starts, the juices flow and I still love the creativity.  Whose to say some young guy can offer any more?  Passion plus experience isn't the worst combo on earth for an owner to hire.  Why limit their rights to work with who they want?


In short, while I doubt you would seriously do anything extraordinary to disturb the free market, I cannot agree with your premise.  Like democracy itself (real, or that GD rating system) the free market isn't perfect, but its the best idea we got.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff:

P.S.  I was kidding regarding your # of courses, but only partly.  I just shake my head at the number of "old undead guys" who are still out there grinding away to take another renovation job away from somebody younger [and then probably turn it over to an unnamed associate, after keeping most of the fee for themselves].  I know, "it's a free market," but the free market does not always produce optimal results for the future of mankind.


P.P.S.  I've done 36 or 37 courses.  I will retire when I get to 50 courses, if I even do.

I never thought about it that way.  I just never had the desire to do bunker or greens on someone else's course.  I would rather be doing something else in golf between jobs.  A guy does all that work and it' still ocnsidered the course of "Named ODG" and odds are half the members like it and the other half don't. 

And talking about I have a question for you historians.  With all due respect to Arnold Palmer,  why is it still being advertised that Arnold Palmer is building a new course at Castle Stuart and why is there still an Arnold Palmer Design co?    Did any of the ODG's , as a company, continue to design after their demise?  If this practice is acceptable then why don't we have someone who is using the Donald Ross name etc?   Will this continue as some of the other Player Signatures die off?