[Mike_Trenham]

An interesting point was also made that players going for it made birdie a significant amount more than laying up.  almost 2 to 1 advantage I believe.  I think the hole fits the course perfectly.  I also think the course doesn't get nearly the credit it deserves. It's fantastic and far more playable than most would have you believe.

I heard this too, but it is a false argument as it ignores the fact that those going for are likely playing well or who move the ball the proper direction to make it a comfortable shot.

[Rob Marshall]

An interesting point was also made that players going for it made birdie a significant amount more than laying up.  almost 2 to 1 advantage I believe.  I think the hole fits the course perfectly.  I also think the course doesn't get nearly the credit it deserves. It's fantastic and far more playable than most would have you believe.

If the hole fit the course perfectly, Pete Dye would have built it in the first place.

I think this is a little bit of a stretch. Pete Dye never realized or thought he could have made a better hole after the course was built? Come on,

[Carl Rogers]

#3 at ANGC, one of the elements makes it an interesting hole is that it is not drivable for the best in the world ... and thus on the tee they have to think about where they want to play their second shot.


I am of the opinion that technology has diminished the quality of Riveria #10, because it is drivable.



I will watch this weekend and make up my own mind the new Sawgrass#12

[Tom_Doak]

If the hole fit the course perfectly, Pete Dye would have built it in the first place.

I think this is a little bit of a stretch. Pete Dye never realized or thought he could have made a better hole after the course was built? Come on,

Rob:


Mr. Dye has indeed gone back and changed holes years later.  Crooked Stick is full of such examples.  I happen to think those changes made the course worse, instead of better, but at least those were Mr. Dye's decisions ... unlike the recent change to the TPC being discussed here.


To the extent that golf course architecture is an artistic pursuit, such changes are a mistake.  Artistic inspiration happens "in the moment", and most of us respect that moment.*   If we didn't, no course would ever get finished -- everything about golf architecture is subjective, and you could keep on second-guessing yourself forever.


Do painters go back and touch up their own paintings twenty years later?


Or do they accede when the painting's owner asks them to okay having someone else touch it up?


*  That's why I said if it really fit perfectly, Pete would have built it to begin with; he would have felt it.  In fact, the history of the hole is that he wasn't allowed to go with his first inspiration.

[Matt Kardash]

I actually liked the old 12th quite a bit, but I think technology had rendered the strategy of the hole a little obsolete. You used to have to risk hitter driver to get a clear view of the pin. In the last decade a pro golfer could hit a long iron and get a view, thus making the hole pretty easy.
It would have been cool to see the original vision of a totally blind approach.

I feel like as the years go by, and the renovations go by, the course is getting more and more loved by the players. I take this as a sign that most everything they have done to the original concept is wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

I feel like as the years go by, and the renovations go by, the course is getting more and more loved by the players. I take this as a sign that most everything they have done to the original concept is wrong.

Different commissioners.  Deane Beman didn't care if he was loved by the players:  he wanted the course to test them, so they could show how good they are.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks for your second to last post. I don't think I've ever read you or another architect here explain the process/use those terms before, ie the in the moment inspiration, as "felt". It also explains why some courses feel manufactured instead of designed - too much of a desire to please others/client and too much of a fear of making mistakes means there's little chance for the felt inspiration to take on life.

[Joe Hancock]

Tom,


I understand what you're saying, on an artistic level. But, the golf course is a functional work of art, and the functionality may not have been what was intended, or technology may change the functionality, etc.  Did Donald Ross fiddle with No. 2 because he didn't like the picture he painted, or was he trying to achieve some level of perfection on a functional level? I don't know the answer.


I have a hard time believeing that even the best of the best architects of golf get it as right as they are capable the first time around. Time during construction rarely allows for that kind of contemplation and analysis. On top of that, just because a course never changes from opening day doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an opportunity to improve, but the cost and downtime aren't always tolerable.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - thanks for your second to last post. I don't think I've ever read you or another architect here explain the process/use those terms before, ie the in the moment inspiration, as "felt". It also explains why some courses feel manufactured instead of designed - too much of a desire to please others/client and too much of a fear of making mistakes means there's little chance for the felt inspiration to take on life.

Peter:


It was easy to talk about "feel" there because I learned that from Pete Dye.  He rarely told us what to do in specific terms when we were finishing a hole ... we were just supposed to keep working on it until it was right.

[Matthew Rose]

What's the da Vinci quote.... art is never finished, only abandoned

[Tom_Doak]

Time during construction rarely allows for that kind of contemplation and analysis.

Joe:


I would have been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt about some of your argument, but this was an especially poor excuse.  On the courses we build, by the time a hole is planted, it's been shaped and edited and irrigated and finished, and there's been at least a month or two for several smart people to keep looking at it and decide if there's anything that needs fixing.  How much more contemplation do you need?  It's not rocket science.


The problem with the rest of your argument is that it applies to every hole ... the good ones as well as the bad.  Just look around at all the golf courses that are now being restored -- most of them, because someone thought they were improving something years ago.  Tell me there are fewer of those, than there are of courses that were made significantly better via redesign.  [I will admit, my perspective here is skewed because my data set is the best of the best.  There are lots of "B" and "C" courses that would benefit from a second look.  Not so many by Donald Ross, or Bill Coore, or Pete Dye.]


I guess I am spoiled, though, from having worked for Mr. Dye, who believed strongly in setting up his projects so that there was never anyone to rush him into something.  No hole was finished until Pete thought it was right, no matter how long it took.  I'm sure Jeff Brauer will come on here and tell us that's not the professional way to do things, but to me, it's way more professional than building something wrong and having to fix it later.  So, that's how I work, and that's why having the fastest guns in the west on my payroll is so important, so we can get that solution built quickly once we've figured it out; and I can tell you that Bill Coore sets up his projects the same way, for the same reason.


As for Pinehurst #2, I think it's an outlier in a bunch of respects.  Ross tinkered with it because it was handy, and, of course, because he waited to build grass greens until he'd gotten to know those holes exceptionally well ... over 30 years!  But he also built 350+ courses where he didn't feel the need to tinker at all.

[Tom_Doak]

What's the da Vinci quote.... art is never finished, only abandoned

I looked this up because I would hate to argue with Leonardo, a true genius.


It turns out the quote cannot be proven to be his.  It is also credited to several others, including Picasso and W.H. Auden, but it is most provably ascribed to Paul Valery.  Who was good ... but no Leonardo.


I suppose it's possible to maintain the perspective that a golf course is a living thing [even more than a painting] and that you can always improve on it.  But how do you take that perspective, and ever finish anything?  I can tell you it's difficult, once you've built more than a handful of courses, to even find time to get back and see them on a regular basis, and I for one would prefer to enjoy them rather than messing around with them [or letting some future architect mess with them on my behalf].


Joe's thought that the "functionality" of the work can be refined and enhanced, is also off to me.  A lot of the reasoning I see given for changes to courses is that a hole has become outdated by technology and that the "shot values" are no longer in order.  This presupposes that "shot values" are fixed and based on a certain player, and that would be the entire problem in such an instance!  The best golf holes work for everybody, not just the guy who hits it 240 yards ... and if it works for everybody now, it should continue to do so into the future.

[Jim Nugent]

Time during construction rarely allows for that kind of contemplation and analysis.

Joe:

I would have been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt about some of your argument, but this was an especially poor excuse.  On the courses we build, by the time a hole is planted, it's been shaped and edited and irrigated and finished, and there's been at least a month or two for several smart people to keep looking at it and decide if there's anything that needs fixing.  How much more contemplation do you need?

You need feedback from lots of golfers (not just your principal or design crew), to see how they actually play the hole.  Hard for me to imagine you can envision all that, no matter how experienced an architect you  are. 

[Rob Marshall]

If the hole fit the course perfectly, Pete Dye would have built it in the first place.

I think this is a little bit of a stretch. Pete Dye never realized or thought he could have made a better hole after the course was built? Come on,

Rob:


Mr. Dye has indeed gone back and changed holes years later.  Crooked Stick is full of such examples.  I happen to think those changes made the course worse, instead of better, but at least those were Mr. Dye's decisions ... unlike the recent change to the TPC being discussed here.


To the extent that golf course architecture is an artistic pursuit, such changes are a mistake.  Artistic inspiration happens "in the moment", and most of us respect that moment.*   If we didn't, no course would ever get finished -- everything about golf architecture is subjective, and you could keep on second-guessing yourself forever.


Do painters go back and touch up their own paintings twenty years later?


Or do they accede when the painting's owner asks them to okay having someone else touch it up?


*  That's why I said if it really fit perfectly, Pete would have built it to begin with; he would have felt it.  In fact, the history of the hole is that he wasn't allowed to go with his first inspiration.

Thanks for the reply Tom. Never thought of it as a piece of art work but it makes sense.

[Peter Pallotta]

From my albeit limited experience in a creative field, there is also this:
That only one in a hundred critics of any piece of work seem to know the difference between "this doesn't work" and "I don't like this". Indeed, few of them even recognize that there *is* a difference.

[Matthew Rose]

Yeah, I've seen other people say that too.... I guess I assumed Leonardo probably was the oldest one to say it.... I've also seen Bob Dylan apply a similar quote to writing songs.

I don't know if building courses is the same way; I guess it is up to your perspective. I suppose my own personal feelings when creating anything are that once I've reached a certain level of contentment or satisfaction, then I would be inclined to move onto the next thing.

I would think second guessing oneself too often could become destructive over time. Really enjoying this discussion even if it's a little off tangent.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


While that fact/opinion might cross the mind of one who is creating, they don't typically pay any attention to it. The artist is going to persue their own ideas, because they can.

[William_G]

TPC Sawgrass is my favorite Pete Dye course to play and watch others play

I would rather play and watch others play the new #12 than the old #12

well done

[Tom_Doak]

You need feedback from lots of golfers (not just your principal or design crew), to see how they actually play the hole.  Hard for me to imagine you can envision all that, no matter how experienced an architect you  are.

Jim:


Every time I go around one of my own courses, what I'm watching is other people's shots, where they land, and what happens to them.  Over time, that experience builds up to where you have a pretty good idea what's going to happen.


I don't understand how you think any of us could ever build a course correctly, if we can't "envision all that" pretty clearly. 


Obviously, the more risks you take by including controversial features, the more chance of error there is.  Some architects just avoid this entirely by building greens and bunkers with little opportunity for a bad [or good] bounce. 


We're never going to envision every possible outcome, but one unlikely outcome does not mean that a hole needs to be changed.  If you are really a minimalist, you believe that whatever feature you have adapted from the ground is a given, and it's up to the player to weigh it correctly.

[jeffwarne]

Time during construction rarely allows for that kind of contemplation and analysis.

You need feedback from lots of golfers (not just your principal or design crew), to see how they actually play the hole.  Hard for me to imagine you can envision all that, no matter how experienced an architect you  are.

If this were the case why would you bother to hire an experienced expert?
and no course would ever be finished.
AND, most importantly, the course would become vulnerable to the "tyranny of the minority".

[jeffwarne]

Isn't this hole just a penal par 3?
Plenty of drivers were required on Golden age par 3's, with no simple layup option.


#jump the shark


Lose much of the lake, play it at 320-360 and let's see some drivers.
Watching guys "go for it" with irons yesterday-zzz

[Tom_Doak]

Lose much of the lake, play it at 320-360 and let's see some drivers.
Watching guys "go for it" with irons yesterday-zzz

Jeff:


No way that's going to happen.  The governing bodies are united in pretending that nobody actually drives it that far.

[Kalen Braley]

I think whats lost in translation on this thread is that golf courses are art..not math.


Deciding if a hole is wrong or right is an exercise in folly/futility.  While there are clear examples of holes that are better than others or more interesting that others, they all lie on a spectrum. I can't see any scenario where a binary correct or incorrect can be applied to any golf hole.


So the only question I see here is, Is the new 12th more desirable or less?

[Joe Hancock]

So the only question I see here is, Is the new 12th more desirable or less?

The next question then is who decides whether it is, or isn't?

[Rees Milikin]

So the only question I see here is, Is the new 12th more desirable or less?

The next question then is who decides whether it is, or isn't?

All of us get to decide for ourselves.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()