Design rankings or beauty contests?

[Bernie Bell]

Pulled this recent piece from Mr Clayton off another thread, seemed like it deserves its own.


https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/design-rankings-or-beauty-contests

[Tom_Doak]

It's too bad Mike didn't name names on the course he found beautiful, but disappointingly designed!


We've discussed before how hard it is to separate the two.  It would be nice to just rate the holes from 1-18, but even that list of the top par-5's in Britain on the concurrent thread has more than a couple of holes that aren't anything special, architecturally, and that was specifically broken down to whether the individual holes were great.


It's not hard to understand the problem.  The 4th hole at Pacific Dunes is very good strategically -- hit the drive away from the cliff edge, leave yourself a much tougher approach back toward it -- but if you replaced the "cliff edge" with a row of houses, nobody would like it much.  [And you could say exactly the same of the 7th at Ballybunion, or the 10th at Pebble Beach.]


In the end, if you're an architect, you use the beauty to your advantage.  It's not our fault if people overrate it for that.  But it is our fault if we don't incorporate interesting golf holes into the setting.

[Ira Fishman]

I hope that Mike will check out this thread and does name the name. PD 6, 12, 15, and 16 may not be "better" holes than number 4, but although visually attractive, do not have the booster rocket that number 4 has. And conditioning in itself should certainly not have an oversized effect. Woking has neither brilliant scenery nor over the top conditioning, yet it is a terrific course. The same is true for Pasatiempo.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I've gotta think TP South is the poster child for this.  All those holes running along the edge of the barranca with all those terrific long views high atop the cliffs overlooking the Pacific.

Although somewhat ironically I bet if you asked the average golfer what they think of when you mention the course, it would probably be the 18th hole and the Devils Billabong...

[Ira Fishman]

In thinking about some of my favorite courses in this context, I looked again at NB and was shocked to see how close numbers 13 and 14 are to the sea.


Ira

[Rob Marshall]

I've gotta think TP South is the poster child for this.  All those holes running along the edge of the barranca with all those terrific long views high atop the cliffs overlooking the Pacific.

Although somewhat ironically I bet if you asked the average golfer what they think of when you mention the course, it would probably be the 18th hole and the Devils Billabong...

I would think it be the 3rd and the 4th holes. The 18th hole is like the old 15th at Oak Hill. "Where did that pond come from?"

[Thomas Dai]

Conditioning - when someone praised the conditioning of the fairways at Sunningdale isn’t Harry Colt supposed to have responded something like “I don’t agree with you, the lies are too damn good”.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

I can't disagree with anything that Mike writes and have often argued for/asked for the same thing myself. And yet:
If even a minority of golfers-raters actually had the ability (and the willingness) to parse out where the 'design' ends and the 'course' begins we'd have a lot less discussion around here, and a lot more high-quality golf courses.
Plus, I'm not even sure that the 'strategy' is at odds with the 'aesthetic', whether found, created or (as in a sea-side site) taken advantage of; indeed, I sometimes think that with good architects the strategy *is* the aesthetic (and vice-versa).

[Ian Galbraith]

In thinking about some of my favorite courses in this context, I looked again at NB and was shocked to see how close numbers 13 and 14 are to the sea.


Ira

Recovery shots from the beach are regular occurrences on both these beauties 

[Tim Martin]

Tom Doak said “use the beauty to your advantage”. I think that’s one of the points that Mike makes as well in his article. It’s tough to completely divest the backdrop when judging a golf hole most especially when there is water on the perimeter.

[Thomas Dai]

I certainly appreciate the points mentioned about the architect making the most of the views, scenery, location etc but I attempt to imagine a 100 ft high solid wall around a course, a wall that blocks out any views at all, and try to analyse the course under such circumstances. Not easy and other factors like wind etc come into the equation as well but it’s the method I attempt to adopt.
Atb

[Jason Thurman]

I agree with Clayton's premise for the most part, but I think he may be a little TOO focused on strategic design. Because the same way that an artistically designed course in a beautiful setting can still disappoint if the strategic elements aren't there, likewise, a strategic course designed without artistry in an ugly setting can be equally disappointing.


For example, I played Canterbury and Kirtland back-to-back in Cleveland a few years ago. Canterbury was shot-for-shot as strategically interesting and engaging as any course I had ever played. But it was also sorta nondescript in appearance (aside from 15). I don't feel like Kirtland was quite as strategically interesting, but it's among the most beautiful places I've played and should get credit for a routing that capitalizes on a dramatic property, and artistry of bunkering and shaping that resonates in the mind for years after playing. I still have a hard time rating either course much higher than the other (though I understand Canterbury might be getting prettier all the time). They're both great courses and great designs, but for different reasons.



Tom Doak's last paragraph above really resonated with me. A great course will exploit and enhance the beauty of its setting by exploring it through the lens of strategic golf holes. The 4th at Pac Dunes would be no less strategic with a row of houses taking the place of the cliff's edge, but it wouldn't be nearly as good of a hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder but honestly there are NO truly great golf holes that aren’t also beautiful or stunning to look at in some way.  There just aren’t.  At the same time there are plenty of pretty holes that have no substance and lots of holes that have substance (strategy and interest) that aren’t visually appealing, but NONE of these will ever be viewed by more than a handful of people as Great.  Let’s face it, the greatest golf holes/courses would all do well in a beauty contest. 

[Joe Zucker]

Beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder but honestly there are NO truly great golf holes that aren’t also beautiful or stunning to look at in some way.  There just aren’t.  At the same time there are plenty of pretty holes that have no substance and lots of holes that have substance (strategy and interest) that aren’t visually appealing, but NONE of these will ever be viewed by more than a handful of people as Great.  Let’s face it, the greatest golf holes/courses would all do well in a beauty contest. 

Mark, do you think the Old Course is beautiful?  I don't particularly find the road hole to be all that great to look at, especially driving over a wall.  That being said, I think the vast majority of great holes do look visually good as well.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Links courses are beautiful in there own way so yes I do think The Old Course is beautiful (rugged) and stunning to look over.  Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


When they built the Old Course Hotel next to the 17th at St. Andrews it sure didn’t help the aesthetics of the golf hole.  The hole, however, is so iconic it gets a pass but few fall in this hallow ground category. 


Note:  This might sound crazy but if it were a Walmart or even a Holiday Inn vs “The Old Course Hotel”, it might have ruined a certain visual and/or emotional aspect of the golf hole.  But there is something about carrying over the rail shed and/or the corner of The Old Course Hotel that we accept its presence. 

[Thomas Dai]

Beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder but honestly there are NO truly great golf holes that aren’t also beautiful or stunning to look at in some way.  There just aren’t.  At the same time there are plenty of pretty holes that have no substance and lots of holes that have substance (strategy and interest) that aren’t visually appealing, but NONE of these will ever be viewed by more than a handful of people as Great.  Let’s face it, the greatest golf holes/courses would all do well in a beauty contest. 

What are your thoughts on Carnoustie Mark? It’s never been considered much of a ‘looker’ although it’s somewhat nicer around the courses and clubhouses than it was a few years ago.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

As I said the links courses are beautiful in their own way.  When I first played Hoylake (the first links course I ever played) I thought it looked like a cow pasture or the surface of the moon but the look of the links grew on me and now I think it is stunning.  Links courses are my favorites so maybe I am biased.  Carnoustie is the same, an aged and rugged beauty.  Portmarnock in Ireland would fall in the same category.  Most of the flattish links courses have that same look and appeal.

Even a course like Sand Hills will appeal differently to different people.  However, if aesthetics weren’t important you might have a Burger King instead of Ben’s Porch and the clubhouse might not be a long cart drive away and out of view from the course.

Ever wonder why Tom Fazio set Shadow Creek 5-10 feet down in the desert?  He didn’t do it just because he liked to dig in the sand.  It is all about the ambiance and aesthetics.  He wanted you to feel like you were in North Carolina not in the middle of the desert.  The only thing you can see from inside the course are the distant mountains, at least that was the intent. 

Flynn lined up many of his holes at Cherry Hills so the backdrop was a particular mountain in the distance.  Of course many of those views got obstructed with large Cottonwood trees   but fortunately we cleared most of them out re-opening those long range vistas   

[Michael Whitaker]

This is what we call the "Wow" factor. A beautiful view... an amazing obstacle... a visual beyond the norm (natural or created)... something that makes you say "WOW" when you first see it.


Good examples for me are when I first crested the hills on #1 at St Enodoc and #5 at New South Wales... you have to say "Wow!"


Raters are hard pressed not to be affected by these wow factors. 

[Ira Fishman]

In thinking about some of my favorite courses in this context, I looked again at NB and was shocked to see how close numbers 13 and 14 are to the sea.


Ira

Recovery shots from the beach are regular occurrences on both these beauties 

Undoubtedly the case. But the greatness of those holes are independent of the scenery at least in my couple of plays.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I find it funny that North Berwick has gained so much in the rankings and everyone pretends that all that frontage on the Firth has little to do with it, but the same water views are certainly the main factor for all the modern courses.


I'm not saying it doesn't have a bunch of great holes - I've been a fan of it for a long time - but aside from maybe Turnberry and Dornoch it has the most dramatic setting of any of the links in Scotland.

[Tom_Doak]

As I said the links courses are beautiful in their own way.  When I first played Hoylake (the first links course I ever played) I thought it looked like a cow pasture or the surface of the moon but the look of the links grew on me and now I think it is stunning.  Links courses are my favorites so maybe I am biased.  Carnoustie is the same, an aged and rugged beauty.  Portmarnock in Ireland would fall in the same category.  Most of the flattish links courses have that same look and appeal.

Even a course like Sand Hills will appeal differently to different people.  However, if aesthetics weren’t important you might have a Burger King instead of Ben’s Porch and the clubhouse might not be a long cart drive away and out of view from the course.

Ever wonder why Tom Fazio set Shadow Creek 5-10 feet down in the desert?  He didn’t do it just because he liked to dig in the sand.  It is all about the ambiance and aesthetics.  He wanted you to feel like you were in North Carolina not in the middle of the desert.  The only thing you can see from inside the course are the distant mountains, at least that was the intent. 

Flynn lined up many of his holes at Cherry Hills so the backdrop was a particular mountain in the distance.  Of course many of those views got obstructed with large Cottonwood trees    but fortunately we cleared most of them out re-opening those long range vistas   

Mark:


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but you are kidding yourself if you think Hoylake is gaining in the rankings based on its visual appeal.


There are many great golf holes that a non-golfer would fail to identify as beautiful.  The 2nd, 4th, 12th or 16th at The Old Course would be among them.  The 2nd at Talking Stick is not one your wife would pick off a photo.  Nor is really anything at Carnoustie.

[Mike_Clayton]

It's too bad Mike didn't name names on the course he found beautiful, but disappointingly designed!


We've discussed before how hard it is to separate the two.  It would be nice to just rate the holes from 1-18, but even that list of the top par-5's in Britain on the concurrent thread has more than a couple of holes that aren't anything special, architecturally, and that was specifically broken down to whether the individual holes were great.


It's not hard to understand the problem.  The 4th hole at Pacific Dunes is very good strategically -- hit the drive away from the cliff edge, leave yourself a much tougher approach back toward it -- but if you replaced the "cliff edge" with a row of houses, nobody would like it much.  [And you could say exactly the same of the 7th at Ballybunion, or the 10th at Pebble Beach.]


In the end, if you're an architect, you use the beauty to your advantage.  It's not our fault if people overrate it for that.  But it is our fault if we don't incorporate interesting golf holes into the setting.

Tom,Ira


Out of respect for a client of yours in a country you enjoy. That should narrow it down!

[Peter Flory]

Even without the big picture settings, a lot of what we like in golf holes are internal interest and style that doesn't necessarily have strategic purpose. 

I'd have to say that overall, it is a beauty contest.  Even in the Miss America pageant (the ultimate beauty contest), they have to show some personality and intelligence. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree Hoylake is as I described earlier a bit like moonscape but there is something about links holes that are beautiful.  Same with many of the holes at Carnoustie.  My den is full of links paintings and lithographs and every one of them looks pretty darn good to me. 


The second at Talking Stick is one of my favorite boundary holes.  Maybe it is the starkness of the OB fence (unless there are homes or something built there since I last played it)  that makes it special coupled with a perfectly placed bunker/green complex. I will concede that there will always be a few exceptions but they are rare. 

[Sean_A]

I find it funny that North Berwick has gained so much in the rankings and everyone pretends that all that frontage on the Firth has little to do with it, but the same water views are certainly the main factor for all the modern courses.

I'm not saying it doesn't have a bunch of great holes - I've been a fan of it for a long time - but aside from maybe Turnberry and Dornoch it has the most dramatic setting of any of the links in Scotland.

One thing about the frontage is that five holes have it as more than background...its in play and is therefore a critical aspect of the design.

Ciao