News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Michael Chadwick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Design vs Setting
« on: March 07, 2024, 11:14:45 AM »
The dueling examples of holes and their backdrops on separate threads scratches at a dynamic that affects any course—the interplay between its design and its setting. It’s likely very hard to quantify just how much a well designed hole gets detracted by underwhelming surrounds, or conversely how much a beautiful setting might enhance a nondescript hole. Or should those elements even speak to one another? Are strategy and setting completely different elements, or do they both have varying values that add to the experience of a course overall?

I think golf is a rare sport where the experience extends beyond the playing area. The player’s visual experience is not limited to the land on which the ball is played; it includes a 360 degree view from any position where a ball can be played. I certainly give far more weight to design than setting, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to consider a course in a vacuum so to speak, as if beyond every hole’s corridor was just empty white space. Although, now that I write that, maybe that would be a fascinating way to compare, say, Camargo to Pebble?

One test case that may become interesting over the next few years is Lido. By all accounts the design has been faithfully replicated, a design that was considered among the world’s best, yet it no longer enjoys its coastal position on Long Island. Might its setting in Nekoosa limit the ceiling to which it can reach in rankings? Without having played it, I think the appearance of the dunes and trees surrounding the course should have no material disadvantage to the experience of the design. Would I think that if Lido were reproduced on a completely sodded parkland setting? I’m not so sure.

For those interested in rankings, or Doak scores, what courses would you say are most buoyed by their settings rather than their design for their acclaim? Or perhaps a more interesting question—what courses do you feel are among the best pure designs, and do any of them suffer on account of their settings? Or does their strategic value provide enough ballast to overcome visual limitations beyond the course?
Instagram: mj_c_golf

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2024, 12:31:35 PM »
Michael,


The first course that comes to mind for me is Prestwick. There really is nothing special about the setting (unless you like trains!), but the course is just so cool.


Idk, perhaps the blind shots negate the influence of setting or maybe it is the sense of history, but IMO Prestwick doesn’t rely on setting.
Tim Weiman

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2024, 12:50:03 PM »

It's definitely a worthwhile topic. I'm curious what you're seeing in your head on the following:

Would I think that if Lido were reproduced on a completely sodded parkland setting?




I think you wouldn't consider it the Lido if it were completely sodded over and full of trees. Unless it's something else you're considering. Like if the distant tree lines came right up to the boundaries of course or something like that. In which case, I could imagine the lack of longer views from the course could reduce its greatness in some people's eyes. Personally, I probably wouldn't mark it down at all in such a case, at least not by much, but I can see the reason one might.


I do think backdrop matters, but I suppose it depends on the ultimate quality of the course. Does Pine Valley suffer in people's estimation because the only thing you can see in any direction is forest?
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2024, 01:54:53 PM »
When attempting to consider this type of issue I try to imagine a huge, massive high wall around the edge of the course I’m considering that I can’t look over. Not necessarily always possible, if ever, but it’s how I attempt to treat things. Outside factors over and above the views and scenery are an influence however,….. noise, hustle and bustle, level of tranquility both off and on-course etc.
Atb

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2024, 02:01:58 PM »
I think it is an interesting question that like everything about course preferences/rankings is subjective. For me, setting means little in assessing the quality of a course. But a golf course is pretty much the only place that I go outdoors that does not have concrete under my feet.


Accordingly, I am not as keen on Bandon Dunes, Kapalua Plantation, Castle Stuart, and Kingsbarns as those who contribute to the rankings.


Conversely, for me, SS Red and Blue are underrated, and I suspect that it is because of the setting. I also think that Pasatiempo is way underrated.


The one course that I probably overvalue because of the setting is Primland. It is an excellent course, but the setting is so unique that it certainly has seeped into my evaluation.


Ira

Simon Barrington

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2024, 06:44:23 PM »
Michael,

The first course that comes to mind for me is Prestwick. There really is nothing special about the setting (unless you like trains!), but the course is just so cool.

Idk, perhaps the blind shots negate the influence of setting or maybe it is the sense of history, but IMO Prestwick doesn’t rely on setting.
Ditto for Carnoustie, as well as Chicago Golf. Both stellar challenges and heart-moving experiences on fairly austere land. The genius of Braid and CBM encapsulated

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2024, 08:39:06 PM »
Michael, I think what you're getting at is the (uncomfortable for some) underpinning that golf, at the end of the day, is just about entertainment. With that, yes, a good setting creates a better experience, and whether the same course is "better" or "worse" in a different environment is kind of irrelevant. It is only in one environment.

Two glasses of the same fine wine, one served at a nice dinner, the other drunk out of a Styrofoam cup both have the same taste, but the enjoyment they bring will be completely different to different people.

This cuts both ways depending on what people like. I always got a kick out of phrase on the Heady Topper can, once the most sought after beer in the world, begging people to drink it from the can instead of pouring into a fancy glass. Creating a sense that this beer wasn't for beer "snobs," but for beer fanatics.

Framing heavily influences the perception of a course, and making sure the framing matches the expectations is the key to creating an experience that brings joy. This is why I talk about halfway houses and the relationship between the 18th and the clubhouses as important. The creation of a setting, or framing, of the course is deeply interrelated as to how well the course works.

Generally the sense of hallowed ground comes with age, and age typically goes hand in hand with survivorship, so we associate it with goodness, but I honestly think one of the things many courses get wrong is trying to capture that setting when it's not appropriate, which is why augustification is so obvious when we see it that it's cliche.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2024, 11:00:00 PM »
While not conclusive, my courses up in the beautiful Northwoods all did player surveys of favorite holes.  The most popular by far were the attractively bunkered holes, even in a nice backdrop of Pines.


Before that, I always figured the better the property, the fewer the hazards needed, and I still feel that should be true, and I won't try to guess or critique anyone's motives or taste.  Just throwing it out there.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2024, 10:05:41 AM »
I’m one who seems focused only on the course. Back Creek is a nice course in Delaware that is routed through houses. I hardly notice the houses.


 I haven’t been to Sleepy Hollow yet but the horseshoe par three with the Hudson and hills in the background is often shown in photos. How does that hole rank among the other 17 holes? It seems to be a classic example of view being paramount.




 
AKA Mayday

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2024, 10:40:16 AM »

I think golf is a rare sport where the experience extends beyond the playing area. The player’s visual experience is not limited to the land on which the ball is played; it includes a 360 degree view from any position where a ball can be played. I certainly give far more weight to design than setting, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to consider a course in a vacuum so to speak, as if beyond every hole’s corridor was just empty white space. Although, now that I write that, maybe that would be a fascinating way to compare, say, Camargo to Pebble?



Michael,

I'm not so sure I'd agree with this.  Playing a game of baseball at the local school yard would be an entirely different experience than being able to have a game with your buddies in Fenway or Oracle Park in San Francisco. Same for basketball, football, hockey, etc.

And it could be argued that playing golf professionally is a "lesser" experience with fans blocking the aforementioned views.




Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2024, 01:13:16 PM »
I’m one who seems focused only on the course. Back Creek is a nice course in Delaware that is routed through houses. I hardly notice the houses.


 I haven’t been to Sleepy Hollow yet but the horseshoe par three with the Hudson and hills in the background is often shown in photos. How does that hole rank among the other 17 holes? It seems to be a classic example of view being paramount.


Mike,


It would be a very good part 3 without the scenic background. The green is quite elevated from the bunker and has a lot of contour.


Having said that, Sleepy Hollow has a bunch of excellent holes so relatively speaking number 16 may not be top 5.


Ira




 

Jim Lipstate

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2024, 06:00:07 PM »
When trying to sort out importance of design versus setting I think back on a course I played in Chattanooga a few years back. Brian Silva designed Black Creek with holes playing homage to the classic design principals of CBM and Raynor. The front nine winds through a nice residential area whereas the back heads into mountains, woods and marsh. I strongly preferred the back nine holes played in a wonderful natural setting.  The 18th hole finished back in the neighborhood spoiling some of the effect. All the holes had their design points and the blind shot 6th hole to a huge punchbowl green was memorable but for me the residential nine downgrades the course experience and enjoyment. Their website must also recognize this as featured hole photographs all were of holes in the natural setting.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2024, 10:39:37 AM »
When trying to sort out importance of design versus setting I think back on a course I played in Chattanooga a few years back. Brian Silva designed Black Creek with holes playing homage to the classic design principals of CBM and Raynor. The front nine winds through a nice residential area whereas the back heads into mountains, woods and marsh. I strongly preferred the back nine holes played in a wonderful natural setting.  The 18th hole finished back in the neighborhood spoiling some of the effect. All the holes had their design points and the blind shot 6th hole to a huge punchbowl green was memorable but for me the residential nine downgrades the course experience and enjoyment. Their website must also recognize this as featured hole photographs all were of holes in the natural setting.


I felt the same way when I played there last summer. Although some of the holes on the front were excellent, the homes took away from the experience. The back nine came alive, although both nines contained outstanding holes.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2024, 11:57:08 AM »
This is a great topic but if you have been on this site as long as some of us, been covered dozens of times.


I always laugh when someone tells me the setting and backdrops don’t impact their opinion of a golf hole/course.  As just one of hundreds of examples, why do many of us like skyline/infinity greensites?  Answer that question honestly and we can end this discussion :)


I was just talking with a friend who is a member about a return trip to play Sand Hills and was thinking of asking him if Ben’s Porch is still there or if they replaced it with a Burger King.  Also wondered if they have built houses in and around the course or any shopping malls - not that it would matter  ;)


One more point, when you buy a home, what is the most important thing to think about?  Isn’t it Location, Location, Location!  Golf courses are the same.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 12:12:50 PM by Mark_Fine »

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2024, 12:37:22 PM »
This is a great topic but if you have been on this site as long as some of us, been covered dozens of times.


I always laugh when someone tells me the setting and backdrops don’t impact their opinion of a golf hole/course.  As just one of hundreds of examples, why do many of us like skyline/infinity greensites?  Answer that question honestly and we can end this discussion :)


I was just talking with a friend who is a member about a return trip to play Sand Hills and was thinking of asking him if Ben’s Porch is still there or if they replaced it with a Burger King.  Also wondered if they have built houses in and around the course or any shopping malls - not that it would matter  ;)


One more point, when you buy a home, what is the most important thing to think about?  Isn’t it Location, Location, Location!  Golf courses are the same.


Hi Mark,


I’m in complete agreement with you that backdrop & setting matters hugely and is part of the experience. But I will add two nuances to what you have said:


- Answering your question on infinity greens, it is - for me - about one less texture at the green complex. I like when the last visible feature on the hole I am playing is the green surface itself as opposed to a semi-rough covered containment mound. It is less about the distant backdrop or even the middle distant (say 50-100 yards) backdrop. Although clearly an ocean is much more enticing than a power plant.


- If a course has great topography and is relatively open, setting outside the course matters far less to me (if not in play). I get my excitement from looking around at the undulations and golf holes rather than what is external. Here again though, long views to oceans and mountains still beat a course hemmed in by forest or houses. It just doesn’t matter as much for me as for some…. If the course has more isolated hole corridors, outside setting matters more as there are no internal long views. The long views are what matter most.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 12:40:11 PM by Ally Mcintosh »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2024, 01:55:24 PM »

Ally,
Sounds like we are in agreement.

I am working on a Master Plan for a private course where a number of the holes are on/near a large lake.  One of the green sites is basically on a peninsula and is surrounded behind by pine trees to the point where you can’t see the beautiful lake.  I took the entire committee out to talk about the hole and the importance (or lack there of) of these trees.  I was getting all kinds of push back as to why the trees were important, why they added to the hole and should be kept.  I then asked the group the question, “How many of you have homes on this lake?  All but a few answered they do.  I then asked, “How many of you would like me to come over this evening and plant rows of pine trees behind your house blocking your views of the lake?”  No hands went up and the trees are coming down behind the golf hole :)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2024, 03:36:02 PM »

I always laugh when someone tells me the setting and backdrops don’t impact their opinion of a golf hole/course.  As just one of hundreds of examples, why do many of us like skyline/infinity greensites?  Answer that question honestly and we can end this discussion :)



The thing about a skyline or infinity green is it is intimidating. Even when the golfer knows that there is a saving bunker or whatever over the back, they generally fight shy of hitting the ball up to the hole when it is near the back of the green. That's what makes it challenging and fun to play. Whether the backdrop is the ocean or a brick works matters not a jot on what makes the hole interesting and challenging.


There you go, there's an honest answer. Does it end the discussion ? Of course it doesn't.


Niall

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2024, 05:40:19 PM »
Niall,
Can you explain to us what a skyline or infinity green is?  Maybe then at least I will understand your brick wall comment.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2024, 05:56:11 PM »
Niall,
Can you explain to us what a skyline or infinity green is?  Maybe then at least I will understand your brick wall comment.


 ::)

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2024, 07:46:25 AM »

Quote from Mike Keiser on infinity greens:



“a green where the back of the putting surfaces melds seamlessly into views that stretch for miles creating a picturesque backdrop while remaining natural in appearance,regardless of whether or not there is a brick wall right behind it”. ;D




« Last Edit: March 10, 2024, 08:00:13 AM by Mark_Fine »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2024, 03:06:31 AM »
The setting always matters. These days, setting views are being purposely worked into designs. On the other hand, a good course is a good course. Seaton Carew is a fine course with an industrial backdrop. Courses in urban or suburban areas can easily be seen as welcome green spaces despite not being obviously attractive. An attractive setting is relative to the area.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2024, 07:54:39 AM »
The setting always matters. These days, setting views are being purposely worked into designs. On the other hand, a good course is a good course.



Yes.  It drove Mark Parsinen crazy that he went to so much trouble to get the playing characteristics of Kingsbarns to be like a true links, only for all of the Scots to immediately call it an "American" course.  That was because of all the background views Mark framed for the golfer.  It was the first course in Scotland where anyone had thought much about that, so it stood out starkly, even if it was pretty.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2024, 07:57:14 AM »

I’m one who seems focused only on the course. Back Creek is a nice course in Delaware that is routed through houses. I hardly notice the houses.



I wish I could be like that, but I'm not.  It's okay if the houses are set well back from the course, but when the backyards are lined up along the fairways, it gives me the heebie-jeebies.  I just think a golf course is meant to be part of Nature, and if it doesn't blend back to Nature at the margins, that ruins it for me, even if the golf holes are pretty good.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2024, 08:06:06 AM »
I think it is an interesting question that like everything about course preferences/rankings is subjective. For me, setting means little in assessing the quality of a course. But a golf course is pretty much the only place that I go outdoors that does not have concrete under my feet.

Accordingly, I am not as keen on Bandon Dunes, Kapalua Plantation, Castle Stuart, and Kingsbarns as those who contribute to the rankings.



Bandon Dunes is a good study in Design v Setting.  A couple of the oceanfront holes [5, 16] really bring the cliff edge into play as a feature of the hole, but others do not, leaving the impression they were trying to have as many holes "touch" the ocean for visual purposes as possible, while NOT having it in play.


Pacific Dunes, by contrast, has only four holes that touch the ocean, and all six full shots on those holes have the cliff in play.  [I didn't think it was on play on #10 when we laid it out, but I have since seen plenty of double-crossed tee shots go over the 11th tee and out of play, into a north wind.]


Both courses highlight the views that are available from the course -- you'd be a fool not to -- but there are some holes where the ocean is integral to the golf, and others where it is not.  The idea of putting up a wall around the 16th at Cypress Point is kind of absurd.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design vs Setting
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2024, 01:45:38 PM »
Michael,


To use Tom Doak’s concept of “good study” in Design v Setting, I would suggest this applies to the 6th hole on the old course at Ballybunion.


Is it a good setting? Well, maybe, especially when you get to the green as it sits with a nice view of the ocean.


But, what about the view from the tee? It depends. You can look to the left out towards the ocean that you see for the first time, but the view straight ahead toward the trailer park isn’t so great.


So what about the design? I have always felt that is the real story, especially if the angle of the fairway and potential impact of the prevailing wind is considered.


If the wind is blowing strongly left to right across the fairway it brings OB on the right into play. For me, then, the play is to aim down the left rough, but that has its own hazard: a flier lie for a shot into a narrow green.


Ballybunion’s 6th does raise a question about the definition of “setting”. Is it just a visual thing or is the typical presence of wind also part of setting rather than design?
Tim Weiman