[Tom_Doak]

In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw.  It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."


I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?


The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley.  Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?


So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture:  the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?


My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course.  [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.]  But I really don't expect perfection, even from God.  It's more important to accept what you are given.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, Tom -
But there's also the theory that God is in the details.
I mean: yes, it's important to you to "accept what you are given", but I'd be surprised if you've routinely "left it at that" in your work. 
At the macro level, there is obviously a big difference between what you were given at Common Ground and what you were given at Tara Iti or Pacific Dunes -- and you accepted those differences. 
But at the micro level, on good but not outstanding sites, I think you must've often 'worked over' a golf hole until it was the best/most interesting/coolest hole you could make it -- relative to what you were given. 
Whether through additional thought & work on the green itself or in shaping the surrounds or in breaking up/blending fairway edges or with one cleverly place hazard, I imagine you've not easily or readily accepted that any hole 'has' to be weak. 
I can understand how, post facto, golfers and critics etc might say that a given golf hole is "weak" in comparison to the others. But that seems a much different thing than a theory which suggests a priori that a weakness/flaw is actually a positive.
Which is all to say: I don't know if the Mr. Crump-Pine Valley approach (and reputation) has in general been good for gca or not.
But I do think that architects should always strive for the perfect, while all the time knowing and being consoled by the thought that they'll never actually achieve it.
The weak holes will take care of themselves...
   
In short: others like Bob and Ally and you seem to fully understand and accept that line of Mr. Simpson's - but I still can't make any sense of what he really/actually meant, i.e. how and why he actually "intended" to include an "amusing but bad" golf hole on a course that he built.


Peter

[Tim Martin]

In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw.  It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."


I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?


The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley.  Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?


So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture:  the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?


My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course.  [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.]  But I really don't expect perfection, even from God.  It's more important to accept what you are given.

Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.

[Tim Gallant]

In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw.  It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."


I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?


The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley.  Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?


So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture:  the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?


My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course.  [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.]  But I really don't expect perfection, even from God.  It's more important to accept what you are given.

Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.

Ah ha! But then it depends on your definition of perfection and per the OP, it seems that his opinion was that a course without 'weak' holes as we would define them, is indeed not perfect.


So then it starts with the routing. With land at the designer's disposal, is there a thought to rout it in such a way that will likely lead to a breather hole or two being present? Or, walkability, wind, direction, etc being equal, do designer's look for a routing that will yield the 18 best golf holes? My mind was drawn back to Sand Hills, or even Sand Valley. Did Coore and Crenshaw look for the routing that gave them the best collection of 18 holes on individual merits, or did they look for cohesion that added the ebb and flow that we talk about, but may mean a hole or two that was 'weaker' than others? I haven't played either of these courses, but I choose them because I believe there was land at their disposal.

[Tim Martin]

In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw.  It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."


I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?


The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley.  Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?


So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture:  the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?


My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course.  [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.]  But I really don't expect perfection, even from God.  It's more important to accept what you are given.

Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.

Ah ha! But then it depends on your definition of perfection and per the OP, it seems that his opinion was that a course without 'weak' holes as we would define them, is indeed not perfect.


So then it starts with the routing. With land at the designer's disposal, is there a thought to rout it in such a way that will likely lead to a breather hole or two being present? Or, walkability, wind, direction, etc being equal, do designer's look for a routing that will yield the 18 best golf holes? My mind was drawn back to Sand Hills, or even Sand Valley. Did Coore and Crenshaw look for the routing that gave them the best collection of 18 holes on individual merits, or did they look for cohesion that added the ebb and flow that we talk about, but may mean a hole or two that was 'weaker' than others? I haven't played either of these courses, but I choose them because I believe there was land at their disposal.

Tim-I appreciate your take and would ask that question about Tom’s effort at Streamsong. It seems to me that the hike to 8 tee from 7 green is less than ideal from a routing standpoint but that Tom felt the quality of the individual hole was worth the trade off. In this case some of the “flow” was compromised for a very good golf hole so obviously there are trade offs that the architect has to make. I can’t imagine what it’s like to look through the lens of a Tom Doak or Bill Coore but it’s an interesting dilemma the architect faces with each new commission.

[Sean_A]

I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.

This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies.  I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal.  Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy.  I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard.  My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property.  I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.

This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies.  I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal.  Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy.  I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard.  My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property.  I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.

Ciao

Generally speaking, I agree with this sentiment. But I think you can't simplify it down to philosophy. Within the strategic golden age designers, some played it safer than others.


For me, Colt has always been the safe pair of hands. Nothing outrageous, nothing too adventurous. Simpson, on the other hand, was nearer the other end of the scale. Perhaps that was why the former held an apparent dislike for the latter. Perhaps that's why he believed Simpson to have created "bad" holes. e.g. The Widow.

[Thomas Dai]

What about holes that look weak/easy but are actually quite the opposite?
Holes where folk walk on the tee thinking birdie and walk off the green with a bogey on the card and a grumpy expression on the face.
Atb

[Sean_A]

I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.

This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies.  I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal.  Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy.  I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard.  My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property.  I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.

Ciao

Generally speaking, I agree with this sentiment. But I think you can't simplify it down to philosophy. Within the strategic golden age designers, some played it safer than others.

For me, Colt has always been the safe pair of hands. Nothing outrageous, nothing too adventurous. Simpson, on the other hand, was nearer the other end of the scale. Perhaps that was why the former held an apparent dislike for the latter. Perhaps that's why he believed Simpson to have created "bad" holes. e.g. The Widow.

Ally

To me Simpson doesn't stand out as something appreciably different to the crowd with blind shots and cross bunkers.  I don't think these guys liked that sort of thing, but would tolerate it once in a while.  Where Simpson stood out is his use of centreline bunkers...he was very good with the concept and I see that approach used fairly often on the new breed strategic courses. Simpson also was a but different in his shaping.  He sometimes did some great centreline hollows which paired beautifully with bunkering.  Was Simpson practically the only guy back then doing unnecesary shaping for fairways?

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

"What slowed it down so much? Habits. Bad habits I think. In many cases it is also the difficulty of the course. Bunker play is time consuming, you have to climb in there and then hitting it and cleaning up after you are done with it. Generally speaking a difficult course is a slow course. You see them come up to par threes and there are three groups waiting to play the hole, that is common, but it is also demonstrating that the place is too difficult. There was a panel at Victoria Golf Club recently discussing the course and they asked me ‘do you think we have any weak holes?’ my reply to that was, ‘if you don’t have any weak holes, well you should have!’ They didn’t know what to say, but that is the point. Golf course architecture is following the tried and proven route, like at St Andrews, there are seven holes without a bunker near the green. The difficulties are the grass, cut close or not, a bit of heather and it functions beautifully."


The above is the full quote which prompted Tim G. to start the thread.  It is Peter Thomson talking about Championships becoming a victim of slow play. 


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

Again, Peter Thomson's quote is using the word "weak" as the opposite of "difficult".


Used in that context, I think none of us would argue that a course shouldn't have weak holes.


If you use the word "weak" as the opposite of "good", then only if you subscribe to Tom Simpson's view will you agree that a course should have weak holes.


So the only debate is whether you agree with Simpson.

[Tom_Doak]

My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course.  [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.]  But I really don't expect perfection, even from God.  It's more important to accept what you are given.

Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.

Tim:  There's a pretty wide gap between "faultless" and "perfection", as I see them.  I used to succumb to perfectionist tendencies, but as my skills got better it became easier to see that there was really no such thing in an artistic field.


Tom Simpson used to use the Road hole as his example:  if the Road hole was the best hole in the world, then why would 18 copies of the Road hole not be the ultimate course?  His answer was that it would be too relentless and terrifying to play; but no matter what answer you give, you admit that there are so many considerations that perfection is a moving target, to be chased but never caught.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," 

Well, there you have it, around here at least.....so many consider you God that you must design the perfect course, every time!


Seriously, your last answer, and a few others suggesting a round of golf is a collection of holes, so you must judge them partially in the context of the others that surround it, hit the nail on the head.  If perfectly placed, a "breather hole" is a great thing, a purpose built "weak hole" by someone's definition. 


For that matter, a great hole, which happens to be the third long par 4 in a row, or the third hole in a row to require a, say, fade may no longer be considered a great hole in the context of playing a round of golf, even if each would be considered for a book like Golf's "500 Greatest Holes."  A course with 18 great holes would probably be a bad course, no?


I recall seeing some of Pete Dye's mid career work, like PGA West.  Every hole was built to be spectacular to look at.  The thing is, if every hole is a signature hole, then its likely none are.  If every hole is visually spectacular, they tend to blend together as much as 18 mundane holes.


If nothing else, the way golfers love to rank everything, sooner or later, for any course, holes will sort themselves out in an (often) generally agreed upon ranking, 1 to 18, no?  Then, the lowest ranked hole(s) will be considered weak.


As others have noted, if each hole has a purpose, distinct from other holes, it doesn't have to be a weak hole. Now, the challenge presented, let's say placing a short iron in a specific part of a large green, might not be as difficult as placing a long iron on a small green, but it is a unique challenge worthy of putting somewhere in the round, no?


What about figuring out a level putt, on a course full of contoured greens?  Is that weak in context of playing the round?  It may be weak in context of award winning golf photos, but then there are many lenses from which different folks judge courses.  One man's trash is another's treasure, and all that.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, you and Joe H agree that architects sometimes do intentionally build a breather hole, a 'weak' hole for lack of a better word -- and sometimes not even because it brings a related benefit (eg a shorter green to tee walk). So I must be wrong in my views, since you guys are right.
But while I can understand your answer in theory, I can't really understand it in practice.
Maybe I've played too many mediocre courses with too many breather holes to be receptive to what you're saying.
PS: when I first read that the Navajos intentionally weaved one mistake into their otherwise perfect blankets so as to 'let the devil out' I was blown away, and truly enamoured of the idea. I was sure that the devil was the devil of perfectionism, and that their approach applied to gca and to other arts as well.
Now I'm not so sure anymore.

[Sean_A]

For me, it is the breather hole which should often not be what it seems.  As mentioned above, breather implies that the golfer is given a break (intentionally or not).  Burnham & Berrow has a terrific breather hole in #16. It comes amongst a stretch of tough holes and offers some respite even if bogeys are far more common than one imagines.  Sure, the hole is easier than many at Burnham, but weak is not a very good desciptor because it is a good hole.  I would think most good archies would always look for a few holes such as this, probably more if the terrain is a bit wild.  This is an aspect of design which can often get lost in the rush to create 7000 yard courses. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Artists sometimes put a small, perhaps somewhat risqué, element into a part of their work, say in the corner of a painting. Bit like an occasional feature, perhaps the shape of a bunker, built into some courses.
Atb

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


I don’t think we’re right, or that you are wrong. Likely, there is more to it than simply “a weak hole”.


One thing that might be overlooked is that there should be as much thought and effort to create the weak hole as any other hole on the course. The hole might be a subtle presentation, but beguiling in its play due to whatever opportunities the architect may have chosen to utilize. Or, it might be the phsycological twist in the round that others have alluded to. Whatever it is, the weak hole doesn’t mean it has no architectural merit. In reality, the well done weak hole might take more thought to produce than the in-your-face strong hole.

[Ira Fishman]

My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course.  [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.]  But I really don't expect perfection, even from God.  It's more important to accept what you are given.

Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.

Tim:  There's a pretty wide gap between "faultless" and "perfection", as I see them.  I used to succumb to perfectionist tendencies, but as my skills got better it became easier to see that there was really no such thing in an artistic field.


Tom Simpson used to use the Road hole as his example:  if the Road hole was the best hole in the world, then why would 18 copies of the Road hole not be the ultimate course?  His answer was that it would be too relentless and terrifying to play; but no matter what answer you give, you admit that there are so many considerations that perfection is a moving target, to be chased but never caught.

The discussion about perfection brings to mind the story about Hogan's Dream/Nightmare.  The one where he is dreaming that he birdied the first 17 holes at Augusta but turns into a nightmare when he lips out the short birdie putt on 18.  Not even Hogan thought perfection was possible.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, you and Joe H agree that architects sometimes do intentionally build a breather hole, a 'weak' hole for lack of a better word -- and sometimes not even because it brings a related benefit (eg a shorter green to tee walk). So I must be wrong in my views, since you guys are right.
But while I can understand your answer in theory, I can't really understand it in practice.
Maybe I've played too many mediocre courses with too many breather holes to be receptive to what you're saying.
PS: when I first read that the Navajos intentionally weaved one mistake into their otherwise perfect blankets so as to 'let the devil out' I was blown away, and truly enamoured of the idea. I was sure that the devil was the devil of perfectionism, and that their approach applied to gca and to other arts as well.
Now I'm not so sure anymore.

Pete,


As to mediocre courses, yes there are plenty, and plenty where the architect never gave it as deep a thought as those expressed in this thread.  Whether pressed for time, uncaring, or under certain directions from the owner (only 20 bunkers for cost or pace of play, etc.)


I can't say I have ever put an intentional mistake in a design to let the devil out, I guess I am just not that deep or spiritual.  But, I do think in terms of "things that make you go, hmmm....."

[Kalen Braley]

In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw.  It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."


I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?


The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley.  Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?


So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture:  the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?


My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course.  [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.]  But I really don't expect perfection, even from God.  It's more important to accept what you are given.

So architecture isn't for Atheists apparently....well I guess i'm glad I dodged that career choice bullet, not that I could design a course anyways,... 

[Pete Lavallee]

Two pages in and only one example of a weak hole has been given; #9 at TOC! Surely someone can come up with one. I’ll try, picking two courses a lot of GCA’ers have played.


Riviera is generally considered a masterpiece, every hole has something going for it. The #18 stroke hole is the par 3 14th. I seem to recall the owners wanting to spice it up! Is that true? But I think it’s a wonderful Par 3 that’s more subtle than in your face at just the right time in the round.


A lot of GCA’ers have played Barona Creek in SD. For the first year or so playing there the only hole I could find fault with was #10; nothing really jumps out at you other than it’s a long shot up the hill. But the hole has really grown on me as leaving your second shot out to the left makes for a difficult if not impossible up and down.


Both of those examples would never make it on a Top 100 holes list but add cosiderably to the course. Are they weak, you tell me?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Weak easy or weak bad?

[Don Mahaffey]

I think weak is the wrong term. Subtle or supporting would be better I think. Every actor in a movie can’t play lead and every musician can’t play lead.


I’m working with a furniture designer. One of his designs just won a huge show in Chicago, one of the two top shows in the world, the other being in Italy.


When I took him into the space where we wanted the furniture piece, he spent about 10 minutes silently walking around in small circles. Then he says “I don’t know what to look at, you made the cabinets look great, and the floor, and the walls, and the ceiling. Everything is great but nothing supports the other, you want this wow piece and I want it to disappear in here”.

[Bob Montle]

Peter, would you agree here?

From the perspective of a high handicapper, I sometimes welcome a "weak" hole, if by that you mean less demanding.

On one of my favorite courses there is a string of three consecutive tough holes.  I can par them, but they require a good accurate drive and a good accurate iron approach.  If either of those is hit poorly I am now grinding to get a bogey instead of double or worse.

How happy I am to get to the fourth, where the fairway is wide and the green is an accessable punchbowl.  For this hole, I can relax and swing away instead of trying to steer the ball.
And yet - how often one pays the penalty for relaxing on this one hole!   So many times, from that momentary relaxation, the focus is lost, to your ultimate ruin.

I say a weak hole, properly placed in the flow, can be a strategic winner.

[Bob Montle]

Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.

Perfection in what way?  The "goal" in designing each hole doesn't need to be the same.  I'm a huge fan of variety.  I dislike penal courses but enjoy a penal hole or two per round.
Too much water is detestable but I like having a creek or three.   I'd rather play on a course with trees scattered (in the right places) than to play at flat and treeless or parkland courses.   For example,  I don't mind one hole which doglegs around a woods.  The same applies to elevation changes.  Variety is the key.  Give me an adventure!  Make me delighted with what the next few holes bring me.  Make each hole memorable.  I fondly remember some "week" holes that stand out as a respite from a difficult stretch.
The easiest (weakest?) hole on a course may still be enjoyable to play purely from aesthetic reasons.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()