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.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Eye Candy!
« on: August 20, 2024, 08:49:26 AM »
Some love it, some don’t.  Is Banff Springs the pinnacle of Eye Candy?  What are some others?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2024, 01:45:41 PM by Mark_Fine »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2024, 06:17:03 PM »
Some love it, some don’t.  Is Banff Springs the pinnacle of Eye Candy?  What are some others?


Do you consider natural views like Banff "eye candy"? Do you consider Cypress Point or Pebble Beach eye candy? What should the architect do, make it ugly to counter the natural beauty?


As an example, I consider Cascata or Shadow Creek in Las Vegas to be filled with artifical elements to be eye candy.

Cal Carlisle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2024, 06:41:57 PM »
No. I consider "eye candy" to be something that is considered beautiful but lacks depth. I haven't been to Banff or Cypress Point but I consider them to be true to their surroundings whilst adding to the experience of the course.


I would consider an artificial waterfall surrounding a green to be eye candy. On its own it could be considered beautiful (I guess), but it doesn't make contextual sense to the rest of the golf course.

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2024, 06:42:41 PM »
Cabot St Lucia is the most visually spectacular course that I have played - I have been to Banff but haven't played it.  I have played Pebble, Spyglass, Cabot Cliffs, etc.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2024, 10:31:30 PM »
I am sure we all have different definitions of eye candy.  For me personally, I am mostly talking about man made features. At Banff Springs which I played yesterday and again today, the surroundings are absolutely spectacular.  Without a doubt one of the most beautiful places on the planet and to have a golf course in this setting is epic.  But with all due respect, there are 150 bunkers on the course and 100+ of them might not see a golf ball all season and some that do are very penal to higher handicappers.  My feeling is Thompson felt such a dramatic site needed dramatic bunkering.  Curious what others think and what are some additional course examples. 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2024, 11:00:04 PM by Mark_Fine »

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2024, 10:47:45 PM »
Payne's Valley comes to mind for me...
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2024, 08:45:57 AM »
Eye Candy is anything beautiful, for example both the 7th and 8th holes at Pebble, 14 and 15 at Cypress, great historic drops at Banff, but if it look artificial, then its arttifical. If it looks natural, even if its artifical, then its eye candy

Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Bret Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2024, 10:10:13 AM »
I am including a Before and After photo of the "Devil's Cauldron" at Banff.  There is a story in "A Difficult Par" (on pages 46-48) about Robert Trent Jones being sent to Banff on behalf of Stanley Thompson.  Thompson was required to give the Railway an annual report on the golf course.  On the visit, Jones suggested the addition of flash faced bunkering around the Devil's Cauldron.  There is a sketch of his plan on Page 47 and it very closely resembles what we see in the 1954 photograph below.


Devils's Cauldron prior to 1932:
[/URL]


Devil's Cauldron 1954:
Devil's Cauldron in 1954:
[/URL]
Noer/Milorganite Image Collection.  MSU Turfgrass Information Center.  September 23, 1954.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2024, 10:27:27 AM by Bret Lawrence »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2024, 04:22:43 PM »
For me eye candy is anything which makes a course visually attractive. It is mostly a positive characteristic because who doesn’t want to play an attractive course? Like everything in golf, the issue is balance. Sometimes eye candy is detrimental to the overall product. It all depends on what sort, how much and how it is applied.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2024, 09:07:46 PM »
 ;D


Too much of anything isn't good and it's true of eye candy. For me some courses have too much going on and it takes away from the beauty of the hole being played. A little bling is ok but when it gets cluttered not too good for me

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2024, 09:53:03 PM »
Archie,
We agree, too much of most anything usually isn’t a good thing.  Eye candy is great example of why judging golf architecture is sooo subjective. 


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2024, 08:12:35 AM »
 8)


Mark that leads to an interesting issue for me when you design a hole. I'm predisposed not to try to make golf holes difficult for the average player. Would much rather use subtlety in a fairway cant or a green that tempts you to overplay your hand on the approach shot.


However as I get older have a greater affinity for quirk!  Don't mind a random bunker at all , as long as it isn't too costly to maintain. Was caddying in a group with Pete Dye in 1980 on the 6th hole at Pine Valley. He was walking along the left side of the fairway , where almost no one goes when he darted to the left and into a series of bunkers that most players didn't even know were there.  He was yelling to his host to come over and share something with him. Naturally I thought maybe they saw a big snake or something but no he was jumping around in the bunkers like a an archaeologist that had just found the bones of George Crump. Never forgot him getting so excited about something so far out of play ....to this day!

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2024, 08:26:07 AM »
Isn't the answer to the question "anywhere on Tom Doak's list of Dumb Blondes"?  I played Bamburgh Castle last weekend.  CPC beating views.


Courses that offer both eye candy at extraordinary levels, plus quality golf must surely include CPC, Pebble and New South Wales.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

J_ Crisham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2024, 02:20:50 PM »
Old Head- incredible vistas/marginal golf

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2024, 03:52:15 PM »
Isn’t the strict definition of “eye candy” look but don’t touch. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2024, 04:18:21 PM »
This is an interesting one Mark, could be a struggle to come up with an agreed upon definition.

Eye Candy according to Merriam is :  something superficially attractive to look at.

But Cambridge says: someone or something that is attractive but not very interesting or useful

The 1st seems to indicate something artificial, but the 2nd makes no distinction.  Going to your original example of Banff Springs, I'm not sure how it would apply to the many natural/unaltered views.  And by the 2nd definition the man-made bunkers could in fact be deemed both interesting and useful.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2024, 08:30:50 PM »
We have also discussed many times whether the surrounds are part of the architecture?  If they are also part of the eye candy for some, are they or aren’t they part of the architecture? 


For me I am mostly talking about man made eye candy but I personally factor in the surrounds into the quality of the golf course/architecture. 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2024, 08:56:22 PM by Mark_Fine »

Mark Kiely

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2024, 02:53:26 AM »

I consider Oak Quarry (Schmidt-Curley w/Dr. Gil Morgan in Riverside, CA) an "eye candy" course, especially some of the standout holes (6 & 16, originally 4 & 14).

IMG_4020 by Mark, on Flickr

IMG_4111-Enhanced-NR by Mark, on Flickr

IMG_4143-Enhanced-NR by Mark, on Flickr

Would these holes play any differently without the dramatic rock/quarry walls serving as a backdrop? No, not really, despite the 6th being one of the coolest green sites I've ever seen. (I don't think people are bouncing approach shots off the rock wall very often.)

Would the experience of playing there be significantly different without those dramatic backdrops? Yes, most definitely.

Personally, I love it. Others may not. I know there's one old post on this site where someone calls it the worst course they've ever played (which is a ridiculous take, imo).

Add in the fact that these rock walls are naturally occurring but their striking appearance is the result of quarry extraction, and the line blurs even further.

I'm not even sure why this thread was created, but I thought these pics and examples might help define what we're talking about.
My golf course photo albums on Flickr: https://goo.gl/dWPF9z

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2024, 09:16:20 AM »
Mark,
Your photos definitely depict a dramatic backdrop for the golf hole.  Surrounds clearly are part of the eye candy but what I was hoping to discuss was more about mad made design features that are there to create visual appeal and do not really present strategic or heroic shot options though they might prove to be penal for really poor shots by higher handicappers. I used Banff Springs to start as one good example. The mountain setting is absolutely stunning but there are dozens and dozens of bunkers that will never see a golf ball maybe all season. They are for the most part eye as candy. 


« Last Edit: August 24, 2024, 08:07:52 AM by Mark_Fine »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2024, 08:17:37 AM »
I thought this topic might have limited discussion because eye candy can be extremely subjective.  Some don’t like to call out their favorite architect or a noted one for building features that are there mainly for visual pleasure (or concern)  ;D  I recall playing Old Memorial Golf Course years ago in Tampa Florida.  I played with the superintendent.  All he talked about was how many bunkers were there that never had a foot print or saw a golf ball but he had to maintain. The bunkers there, like at Banff, were everywhere and they made for some amazing eye candy. As I said, some will love it and some will just wonder what was the architect thinking.  Pete Dye did this at Whistling Straits.  He wanted a site that didn’t have a grain of sand to start to look like it was always there, a natural dunes landscape.  It took time to age but the 1400+ bunkers/sand areas work pretty well.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2024, 10:22:23 AM by Mark_Fine »

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2024, 09:57:36 AM »
I think there is course conditioning and then scenery or setting, which I would say are separate. Some wonderful settings:
  • Cape Wickham
  • Pebble Beach
  • etc.
Course conditioning or maybe "eye candy":
  • The Quarry at La Quinta
  • ANGC
  • Emerald Dunes
I enjoy both actually as course conditioning could be like lipstick on a pig.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2024, 11:10:05 AM »
Some love it, some don’t.  Is Banff Springs the pinnacle of Eye Candy?  What are some others?


Why the bunkers:


Banff Springs is largely a flat piece of terrain. There’s terrain on 2,4,6,9,11,15 and 18. The remaining 11 are basically flat valley bottom. Often the bunkers were used to generate the material to lift greens and create topographical relief.


He cleared it wide. Then used bunkers to swing the fairways between the features and fill up the large corridors.


Why so many. He used less at Jasper (original form) and it lacked human scale. So varied things up more to achieve more human scale.
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Mark Kiely

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2024, 01:08:11 PM »
Seemed for a while ('80s/early '90s is when I associate it with) there was a trend of golf course lakes that included fountains. Was inclusion of the fountain typically part of the golf architect's plan or something the developer wanted and added on their own?
My golf course photo albums on Flickr: https://goo.gl/dWPF9z

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2024, 09:25:32 PM »
 8)


As one who lived thru them both fountains and disco are no longer "vogue"


thank goodness

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Eye Candy!
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2024, 07:59:20 PM »
I thought this topic might have limited discussion because eye candy can be extremely subjective. 


It would have helped if you clearly identified what you meant in using the term.


I don't think of the setting of the course as "eye candy" at all.  It's a big part of what an architect has to work with, and you would always hope to maximize what you are given.


Adding bunkers at the margins can be considered eye candy, or not.  For an example, Tara Iti was mostly flat, and had to be stripped of all the commercial pine forest that had been planted and revegetated.  We only grassed as much as we felt necessary, and the rest is a combination of reveg native plants [where you might lose the ball] and open sand [which are not technically bunkers but may be seen as such].


Yes, the white sand does add contrast and drama and may be seen as such, but it was also a practical solution to using all of the open sand created by the clearing work.  I would not say the same for Old Memorial, but maybe that's how its designer looks at it, as well.