Less is more!

[Mark_Fine]

What is good vs great golf architecture is soooo subjective.  Take the latest Golf Club Atlas Home page photo that is up right now (maybe someone here can add it to this thread)?  That left front bunker is beautifully done (as are the other bunkers surrounding the hole).  However, do those bunkers add to or subtract from the beauty of this golf hole?  This greensite is perched on a cliff.  I could be wrong but I highly doubt there was sand up there?  Even if there was, the setting with the rock outcropping and the green sweeping behind it with the ocean backdrop is plenty of drama and to me looks much more natural.  I have said many times on this site, sometimes less is more.  Any thoughts?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - you asked me on another thread why anyone would want to “separate out” history and/or scenery and/or setting when evaluating (ie rating and ranking) quality golf course architecture.
On that thread, I wasn’t suggesting either that we should or shouldn’t separate out the bells and whistles from the design itself; I was instead wondering if a group dedicated to understanding and celebrating architecture as architecture/fields of play (eg options and strategies and variety and width and green contours etc etc) sometimes found itself unduly influenced by the peripherals - whether an ocean view or a century long championship pedigree.
All of which is to ask, and this is a genuine question not a rhetorical one: what does the dramatic ocean setting add to the actual architecture itself, to the golf hole as a conscious design aimed at creating the fun and challenge and choices inherent in the game?
Or to put it another way: doesn’t that left side bunker add challenge and tingles for those trying to play “safely” away from the outcropping, and doesn’t it serve that function regardless of whether or not an ocean is there to provide visual drama?
Peter

[Tim Martin]

Mark - you asked me on another thread why anyone would want to “separate out” history and/or scenery and/or setting when evaluating (ie rating and ranking) quality golf course architecture.
On that thread, I wasn’t suggesting either that we should or shouldn’t separate out the bells and whistles from the design itself; I was instead wondering if a group dedicated to understanding and celebrating architecture as architecture/fields of play (eg options and strategies and variety and width and green contours etc etc) sometimes found itself unduly influenced by the peripherals - whether an ocean view or a century long championship pedigree.
All of which is to ask, and this is a genuine question not a rhetorical one: what does the dramatic ocean setting add to the actual architecture itself, to the golf hole as a conscious design aimed at creating the fun and challenge and choices inherent in the game?
Peter

PP-I don’t get the push back on this one. When you get a shot with the girl of your dreams would you rather be out at Bir Sur or in a station wagon in the back of an industrial Park?

[Peter Pallotta]

Not a push-back, Tim, as much as a genuine question.
Garden City is a very highly ranked golf course on a fairly non-descript site lacking in almost all bells and whistles, and certainly without ocean views.
So I'm asking: what is being evaluated (and rated so favourably) at GC if not the architecture itself, i.e. the interplay of features and hazards and greens etc -- and if that is what's being judged there, why would we question the value of hazards here just because there's an ocean in the background?
Peter
Yes, I'd probably rather be at Big Sur -- but my fullest attention would still be on the girl of my dreams... 

[Kalen Braley]

Interesting thread.


Does this mean you think they overdid it on this hole as well?

[Tim Martin]

Not a push-back, Tim, as much as a genuine question.
Garden City is a very highly ranked golf course on a fairly non-descript site lacking in almost all bells and whistles, and certainly without ocean views.
So I'm asking: what is being evaluated (and rated so favourably) at GC if not the architecture itself, i.e. the interplay of features and hazards and greens etc -- and if that is what's being judged there, why would we question the value of hazards here just because there's an ocean in the background?
Peter
Yes, I'd probably rather be at Big Sur -- but my fullest attention would still be on the girl of my dreams...

PP-Let’s flip the script and ask you the question. I saw you opine on NGLA and Pebble Beach today on other threads. After playing those two courses do you think you would enjoy them as much if they were inland in a neighborhood? You don’t think after playing Garden City Golf Club that an Ocean would be better in the background than the hotel? Your a Renaissance man so you must have liked the blazer.

[Garland Bayley]

What is good vs great golf architecture is soooo subjective.  Take the latest Golf Club Atlas Home page photo that is up right now (maybe someone here can add it to this thread)?  That left front bunker is beautifully done (as are the other bunkers surrounding the hole).  However, do those bunkers add to or subtract from the beauty of this golf hole?  This greensite is perched on a cliff.  I could be wrong but I highly doubt there was sand up there?  Even if there was, the setting with the rock outcropping and the green sweeping behind it with the ocean backdrop is plenty of drama and to me looks much more natural.  I have said many times on this site, sometimes less is more.  Any thoughts?

You are beginning to sound like Bill Diddel.
"In 1928 Bill purchased 168 acres in Hamilton County, Indiana. He managed to hang onto it through the depression. In 1951 he designed and built Woodland Golf Course. Originally the course was to have no bunkers, only contours to provide strategic components of the golf course."
http://www.billdiddel.com/history.htm

My first experience with grassed golf courses was Elks Country Club in Lewistown, MT, a Bill Diddel design. Since learning about Bill, I had always wanted to get to play Woodland. But, I was greatly disappointed to learn that Pete Dye renovated the course and it is strewn with numerous, undoubtedly, unneeded bunkers after Pete's renovation. Why Pete Dye? Bill was Pete's mentor. Seems Pete didn't learn a lot from the master.

IMO good architects are artists. Unfortunately, they don't have a large tool box to work with, in the sense that artists have a vast array of colors and media to work with. So bunkers are a major tool they use. Well done bunkers are a pleasure to look at. Poorly done bunkers are sometimes just a necessary evil.

I suspect that if an accurate mathematical/statistical model of the "strategic" nature of bunkers were developed (if such a thing could be done), it would be determined that they don't play a significant strategic factor in the play of the vast majority of players. It seems to me that the average player gets in a bunker as often when aiming at it as when aiming away from it. Therefore, bunkers are for the highly skilled golfer, and just an artistic expression for the rest of us.

As for the picture in question, I don't see the need for the bunkers.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

The correct answer is either the station wagon/industrial park or Big Sur.  You will be oblivious to your surroundings either way.


Back to the hole in question, if I found myself on a hole like this I would consider myself very lucky.  But let's nitpick anyway!  The lobe of the large left hand bunker jutting well off to the left strikes me as quite unnecessary.  To me that's just visual framing, as the golfer finding that particular lobe has plenty of problems already, either smother hooking, fat pulling, or heel shanking a short iron.  I would fill the lobe of that bunker in and have it start even with the crook of the left hand fence and wrap fully around into the back left bunker.  That would make the left edge of the green look very dramatic (not that the hole needs more drama), especially with a pin over there.  That grassy hump in between the left bunkers must lead to some very unfortunate bounces, anything landing on the top or backside of that hump will go rocketing off into never never land.


Ok ok enough hack armchair architectin' for now.

[John Connolly]

I'd venture to say that left bunker was put in as a way to hold balls from running over the cliff. The proverbial safety net. May not have been a strategic or aesthetic inspiration at all.

[Rick Lane]

I was just about to type the same....I think its a "pace of play" bunker.....keep more balls in play.   Maybe the prevailing wind on this hole has something to do with it?    Maybe its usually into you from the right?    If so, that bunker size makes a little more sense.

Back to Peters point though, which was the other thread:    If this exact hole existed NOT on the ocean, same rocks, same bunkers, but set amongst rocks and trees in a little valley, would we see it as the same architecture?  Would we "value" the architecture the same, or does the ocean necessarily become part of the "architecture"?    Personally, I think the setting, given that it occupies a bit of your brain, IS a part of the hole?

[Mark_Fine]

Great comments by all!  See how subjective golf architecture is


Just to add some more comments; I am one of those guys that believes the surroundings and long range views ARE part of the golf hole.  When an architect shapes/emulates their greenside bunkers or mounding to reflect a distant mountain range (for example) it is because that distant mountain range in the back drop “is part of the golf hole”.  If there was a McDonald’s directly behind that hole we are talking about on the Golf Club Atlas home page, we would all think differently about the quality of that hole. I highly doubt anyone here would be buying the lithograph of that hole and hanging it behind their desk   That cliff and that ocean is part of that golf hole and the two can’t be separated.  If a McDonald’s get built behind it, it is the same as painting a Budwiser logo behind the Mona Lisa.  The whole aesthetic the architect was trying to capture is ruined.


As far as these bunkers go, there are all sorts of reasons the architect felt they should be there.  Again, this is subjective but I think the natural rock outcropping was plenty and that coupled with the cliff setting was perfect as is.  Yes the bunkers surely act as “saving bunkers” and prevent many balls from finding a worse fate.  There are times for that feature but maybe (or maybe not) here. 


I am extremely familiar with #7 at Pebble Beach having played the courses dozens of times.  It is a different hole and while it has the same ocean backdrop, it didn’t have that beautiful rock outcropping like the one on the GCA home page.  Do the bunkers there work, I think so but again it is subjective as I think they mostly serve a different purpose than the ones we are talking about. 


By the way, I love bunkers - wrote a whole book about them

[Tom_Doak]

I suspect the reason for the bunker is safety.  If it was turf all the way to the cliff edge I wouldn't want to be the guy on the mower.


Design isn't always about eye candy, and sometimes it's not even about golf shots.


When we built Cape Kidnappers we have a 650-yard hole along a cliff with only a 3-wire fence between the golfers and the ocean 400 feet below.  Too bad nobody ever posts pictures of that course when they accuse me of putting in too many ragged-edged bunkers.

[Garland Bayley]

Too many ragged edged bunkers. You didn't seem to need such bunkers between the green and the ocean at the iconic 13th at Pacific Dunes, nor did Kidd need such bunkers between the green and the ocean at the iconic 16th at Bandon Dunes.


Just call me nobody.

[Tom_Doak]

Those are two of the smallest bunkers we've ever built.  We just didn't want to put the fence behind the green and have a ball that went off the back collar be o.b.

[BCowan]

Mark - you asked me on another thread why anyone would want to “separate out” history and/or scenery and/or setting when evaluating (ie rating and ranking) quality golf course architecture.
On that thread, I wasn’t suggesting either that we should or shouldn’t separate out the bells and whistles from the design itself; I was instead wondering if a group dedicated to understanding and celebrating architecture as architecture/fields of play (eg options and strategies and variety and width and green contours etc etc) sometimes found itself unduly influenced by the peripherals - whether an ocean view or a century long championship pedigree.
All of which is to ask, and this is a genuine question not a rhetorical one: what does the dramatic ocean setting add to the actual architecture itself, to the golf hole as a conscious design aimed at creating the fun and challenge and choices inherent in the game?
Or to put it another way: doesn’t that left side bunker add challenge and tingles for those trying to play “safely” away from the outcropping, and doesn’t it serve that function regardless of whether or not an ocean is there to provide visual drama?
Peter

Peter,


   I agree with you.  I prefer inland sites to water sites or just judging what's in the ground verse around the ground.  However I would prefer to own a course on water as insurance  being that I'm in the minority imo.  Chicago Golf Club doesn't seem to be at a disadvantage too much against NGLA and I hear that CGC is relatively flat and doesn't have water views.   

[Forrest Richardson]

Mark is certainly a proponent of "less is more." When we co-wrote Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards I had to contribute three words to his every one 

Some golf holes simply are "born" with good looks and great settings. They usually will need less artificial work — take your pick to define that (hazards, shaping, movement, etc.)  But, it doesn't mean that an exceptionally "wow" natural setting or backdrop cannot also be adorned. If in the proper ratio and ways, the hand of the golf architect can come out good in any situation.

One of the great things about our profession/art is that there are no rules. Every time I read a "doctrine" here it makes me wince. "Less is more" is certainly not a doctrine per se, but it gets close. If "Less is more" is to be applied in all instances, let us now order the immediate clean-up of the Road Hole with its pesky walls, the barn, hotel and road!

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
Lol about the book.  It was more like 10 to 1 until I edited it 😉 


We were thinking along the same lines.  I had just typed this post and I will include it as I had it before your put up your post.



The topic of golf course surroundings has been debated on this thread for ages and frankly it deserves NO debate.  The surroundings (backdrops, boundaries, physical location,..) ARE part of what constitutes (any) golf course and that is a fact.  Do they make the golf course better or worse - well it all depends and that is where subjectivity comes in but regardless they ARE part of the make-up of the design. 

Why for example at Sand Hills did Dick Youngscap set his clubhouse down in a hollow about a 5-7 minute cart ride from the practice range and first tee?  He had all kinds of room?  Why not build it right near by and add in a helicopter landing pad as well?   


It is all part of the course/experience and the two can't be separated. 


Last example - the Old Course Hotel on the 17th hole at St. Andrews.  It is not on the property but anybody who tells you that it is NOT part of the golf course is sadly mistaken.  No different than the road beyond the green 😉


The "golf course" extends well beyond the physical boundaries!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always associated the phrase with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the influential architect.  I have seen some of his work around Chicago, like the Farnsworth House, Lakeshore Drivebuildings and the IIT Campus (where somehow a distant uncle got some kind of award and we went to see him get it, and I was old enough to know I was going to be some kind of architect.)


His supporters say his work epitomized structural simplicity and spatial clarity, and were close to being perfectly understated environments.  I was in the Mike Young school of cynicism, believing that the new steel and glass technology just sort of led him to use the phrase as marketing because that his how the buildings had to come out.......


I have thought about it many times over the years, and I still don't see why architecture can't embrace aesthetic elements only, after the basic "form follows function" design has been made.  Yeah, its a philosophy, but those steel and glass buildings that typify the style really never looked that great, and concrete, wood, and brick are just better to look at.  I can understand the post WWII ethos o streamlining.  All those ornate cathedrals had already been done, and the over detailing of many elements on a building really serves no purpose. 


Turns out one of his mentors used it, he heard it when he was 19.  He appropriated it for a different meaning.  I still think it was marketing most of all. There are other examples of the phrase outside architecture, from Japan, (maybe their zen gardens, where not much goes on, and the viewer is expected to fill in the gaps from their experience) poetry, engineering, etc. (Bucky Fuller was into domes, in part because they covered a structure with less material than a square wall building)


In fact, Mies tried to use every element to serve multiple purposes, both practical and aesthetic.  For bunkers, I have always followed this mantra, without really mentally linking it to Mies. 


When considering whether to add a bunker, I ponder whether it affects strategy, looks good, and serves other purposes, like saving balls from going over the cliff in the photo being discussed or directing golfers either to or away from some particular location, often for safety.  I also consider if they block natural circulation paths, walking or for carts, to make sure they serve no negative purpose.  If a bunker serves more than one purpose, it usually gets added.  If it serves no or one purpose, and perhaps only half way does it well, it usually goes out.  It is why I rarely if ever build a "fore" bunker just 100 yards off the tee for visual composition purposes only.

Sand bunkers do have the advantage over steel and glass in that they do naturally look pretty good, contrasted against green turf. 
Thus, using too many bunkers serve no purpose, but can be more aesthetically pleasing, which is justified often to add superfluous bunkers.


IMHO, the over edging and ornate frilly edges are sort of the equivalent to the ornate cathedrals Mies and others were trying to get away from, and can hardly be classified as minimalism.  You can take the same bunker, and cut 150 foot of edge, or 300 foot of ornate edge.  Obviously, the 150 foot is minimalism, since the bunker serves the same function and is created with less work, no?

[Jeff_Brauer]

 [font=]Two and a half years ago, I used my Golf Course Industry Column to explore how a few axioms from building architecture apply, or not, to golf course design.  [/font]It followed a column dedicated to how “What Dad told you” applied to the[font=] golf course architect’s mindset.”  [/font]
[font=]Mark’s thread had me drag this out over morning coffee, edited for brevity, not sure why the font tags keep showing up, perhaps because I cut and paste the word doc.[/font]
[font=] [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]The saying, “A camel is a horse designed by a committee” may not have originated from golf course renovations, but it's often applicable. [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Design is about Function, Not Just Aesthetics. [/font][font=]Aesthetics are first thing golfers’ notice, but potentially the last things considered by architects.  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]As Steve Jobs said, “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”  [/font]
- [font=]Golf architecture is “arranging elements to best accomplish the particular purpose of making golfers’ enjoy their rounds.” “Following the land” and “creating strategy” are only tools in facilitating a better golf experience, not the end goal.  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Architect Louis Sullivan said “Form follows function” but later added, “But the building’s identity resides in the ornament.”  [/font]G[font=]ood golf courses are both functional and aesthetic.  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Good and bad design are usually apparent, but great design is transparent.[/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Design is like offensive linemen – rarely mentioned until there is a big mistake, like a QB being sacked.  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Golfers can easily identify bad design- they just don’t like it.  [/font]But, they can seldom pinpoint why a course “feels good”.  It’s great design!
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Good design is good business [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]“P[/font][font=]eople ignore design that ignores people.”([/font][font=]Frank Chimero)[/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Everything is designed, but few things are designed well.  [/font]The only alternative to good design is bad design…..which will either bug you for 20 years, or be expensively rebuilt in 10. 
[font=]-        [/font][font=]There are no “Master Builders”. [/font][font=]Some committees expect the architect to “come down from the mount” with visionary proposals.  [/font][font=]Even the egotistical Frank Lloyd Wright said, “I never design a building before I’ve seen the site and met the people who will be using it.”  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]The Design Process is similar to the Scientific Process…..[/font][font=]Both analyze first, hypothesize possible solutions, test them, and then pick the best.  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]……Except when it isn’t. [/font][font=]Inspiration can strike architects at any moment, and come from unlikely places.  [/font]Einstein said, “[font=]I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.[/font][/url][font=]”  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Is[/font][font=] there ever a good reason not to make the permanent design better?[/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Design freedom actually requires a firm structure of “design rules.” Designers respect this framework, but retain childlike wonder to remain open to ideas. [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]The architect must know when to break rules[/font][font=] – Never is boring, but too often is a disaster.  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Design Is a Balancing Act - [/font][font=]The best design finds your best balance between budget/business/practicality/logic and art, as well as concept and engineering/detail. [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]There are few universal rights and wrongs in golf course design, but there is a best design solution for your specific situation – it will solve most important issues, without unduly sacrificing lesser concerns. [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Designing for everyone and everything equally is impossible[/font][font=], so someone will be unhappy to a degree.  [/font]Sometimes in politics and design, everyone being midway between happy and angry might be a sign of a well-balanced solution!
[font=]-        [/font][font=]The Architect has many masters - [/font][font=]the committee, the Owner, legally to regulatory bodies, morally to golfers, financially to book keepers, practically to superintendents, ethically to neighbors, the community and the environment.  [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Constraints are good –[/font][font=]It always seems as if the land next door is better, but good designers embrace constraints to form a unique design.  [/font](Mongo like constraints!)
[font=]-        [/font][font=]Simplicity Pays - [/font][font=]Einstein said, “We should make things as simple as they can be, but not simpler.” If Rube Goldberg engineering is required to it pull off, it’s usually a poor concept. [/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]It’s hard to Explain Good Design. Like art, you know it when you see it.[/font]
[font=]-        [/font][font=]the difference between “pure art” and golf course design: “Art is like masturbation. It is done for you alone. Design is like sex. There is someone else involved, their needs are just as important as yours, and if everything goes right, both parties are happy in the end.”[/font]
[font=]Anyone else have some quotes that somehow apply to golf course design, beyond the usual, use the land?[/font]
[font=] [/font]

[Sean_A]

When it comes to bunkering less is more is almost always preferable because it affords the opportunity for more variety.  There are exceptions though.  Flatish land with few trees often needs something to boost the visuals.  I don't know if that means more bunkers, but certainly more sand.  That doesn't mean hollows and humps shouldn't be deployed or that moving dirt is off the table.  At the end of the day if the greens are interesting and varied that will take the pressure off whatever decisions are made about the man-made features. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


It also helps if you consider any "non-essential" design element, like bunkers, as temporary.  It's not unusual for sand bunkers to be more necessary when there are fewer trees, as you note, but also to be more necessary when selling surrounding real estate, which is one of their prime functions. 


When real estate is sold out, and the course sold off as a private club, they are often re-thought in light of having one less function to serve.


And years later, if that private club is struggling, and sold to a city to convert to a public course, those bunkers might be re-thought again in light of the courses new role.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Unfortunately there are times when sand should be used for protection and even to stop a ball from going into the abyssssssss. That is the nature of projects and must be accepted.  But man, for the past 10-12 years I have been on about too much sand (or sand in the wrong the places) and it rarely has anything to do with safety.  What I find very interesting is the choice of bunkers on sandy soil.  The cost of building bunkers isn't bad and there tends to be natural pockets to build bunkers.  This situation (very 1st world I know!) must be quite difficult for archies because often times the terrain will be lovely for golf and if designed well won't need many man made features. 

I see real dividing lines between heavy bunkering (80ish), very heavy bunkering (100+ish), light bunkering (under 50ish) and very bunkering (under 25ish) and wonder how the bunker decisions came about....meaning what is the justification for each bunker.  I have long thought archies should place limits on themselves as to how often a bunker should be placed using a justification.  There might be far fewer repetitive placement bunkers if archies thought of bunkering in this way.  Who knows, maybe archies might route their courses using the subtle features if they thought this way.

Ciao

[Matthew Mollica]

What is good vs great golf architecture is soooo subjective.  Take the latest Golf Club Atlas Home page photo that is up right now (maybe someone here can add it to this thread)?  That left front bunker is beautifully done (as are the other bunkers surrounding the hole).  However, do those bunkers add to or subtract from the beauty of this golf hole? 

Here's the pic in question.

[Sean_A]

To me, at least the front two bunkers add to the hole because they increase playability for a tough green site.  The hole would be basically be a do or die shot without the bunkers. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

An aside -
what are the things in the sea behind the green? Fish farms or something else?
atb