News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« on: March 02, 2010, 05:30:53 PM »
On another thread it was mentioned that the site at KB was so flat that a GCA would have to move a lot of dirt in order to make it an interesting course.

Although I appreciate that ground movement is a desirable feature couldn't a course be interesting with very subtle movement and well placed hazards?

 
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 08:41:41 PM by Jon Wiggett »

Thomas McQuillan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2010, 05:58:12 PM »
What does KB stand for? I agree that well placed hazards that force the player to think make a course almost as compelling as a course a course with good ground movement. I would almost go as far as saying that I would find a course without hazards boring no matter how undulating the ground is.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2010, 06:01:55 PM »
Jon,

Not sure it would have worked at the KB site but it certainly does here:

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/talkingstick

Highly recommend you check it out if you haven't....
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2010, 06:02:17 PM »
No, the advocates of Kingsbarns are right. You've got to make the ground be great. Winged Foot West sucks!
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2010, 06:02:46 PM »
Although I appreciate that ground movement is a desirable feature couldn't a course be interesting with very subtle movement and well placed hazards?

 

John,

Talking Stick in Scottsdale is a good example.

EDIT - Tigerman beat me to it.  That's twice for me today.  :)

Thomas McQuillan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2010, 06:15:06 PM »
Talking stick is a great example and so was that Australian course that was profiled on the discussion group a while back. I can't remember what it was called, I think it was Royal New Queensland or something. Although I'm leaving myself open to criticism from lovers of Royal Ashdown Forest.

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2010, 06:19:40 PM »
Thomas,

Royal Queensland is correct.

Pup's thread about Mike Clayton's recent work is below.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42747.0/

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2010, 06:31:18 PM »
Quote
Although I appreciate that ground movement is a desirable feature couldn't a course be interesting with very subtle movement and well placed hazards?

C&C do exactly that. Utilizing the subtle movements inherent in the specific site.

Some of their critics fail to recognize how well they do that, or just don't view it as quality. I disagree with those critics.

After playing Bandon Trails, and Sugarloaf recently, I'm convinced their approach accentuates what playing golf in a natural setting really means.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2010, 06:31:58 PM »
 :D ;) ;D


Remember that flat sites tend to be difficult because in routing the course, it's hard to layer holes in close proximity....elevation gives you not only variety but safety  in design...new standards to avoid litigation ( yep hear it is again) are inherent in golf course design...lots of older courses would not be able to be built for fear of overzealous litigators....Jeff Brauer , Tom Doak and others can expand on this with some personal experiences I'm sure

On a very small site ( 117 acres + - ) Merion plays big and the routing is phenomenal....this is in great part because some of the fairways are pancaked above others ...you would never ever think the site was so small ....on a flat site this would be impossible to achieve ....check out the aerials of Merion and it really is quite amazing

A little bump and roll in golf is pretty fun , flattish sites tend to be a little repetivtive , no matter how good the architecture


TEPaul

Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2010, 07:10:03 PM »
Master Jon Wiggett:

You wrote the title of this thread---"Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?"

Take that title home with you tonight and work on it. If it is not repaired by class tomorrow you will be given 110 demerits and made to stay after class and write "being," "Being," "BEING" no less than 1,029 times.

You must realize this is a world-wide website populated by the architectural intelligentsia and numerous other intellectuals. Such grammatical catastrophe as that title is highly offensive to the razor thin sensibilites of many others on here such as I. What could you have been thinking about when you wrote a title that grammatically crass? Could you have been thinking about pussy?

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2010, 08:45:04 PM »
Master Jon Wiggett:

You wrote the title of this thread---"Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?"

Take that title home with you tonight and work on it. If it is not repaired by class tomorrow you will be given 110 demerits and made to stay after class and write "being," "Being," "BEING" no less than 1,029 times.

You must realize this is a world-wide website populated by the architectural intelligentsia and numerous other intellectuals. Such grammatical catastrophe as that title is highly offensive to the razor thin sensibilites of many others on here such as I. What could you have been thinking about when you wrote a title that grammatically crass? Could you have been thinking about pussy?

TEP Esq.

thank you for the correction and it is now corrected ;D

p.s. Z is for zebra ;)

John Moore II

Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2010, 09:10:37 PM »
Just go to south Florida and you'll see why flat land is difficult to work with. Flat land has very little drainage and its hard to make features look natural. Designers wind up having to dig ponds in order to allow for water to drain and move around enough dirt to make land features. Pan flat land just isn't much to work with because there is nothing there, everything must be constructed by the designer.

Andy Troeger

Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2010, 09:45:47 PM »
If Talking Stick North is among the best courses that can be presented, then in my mind that answers the question. I know some of you really like it and I would admit it is well designed, but I still don't think its among the best in Arizona let alone on a larger scale.  The difference between what C & C did at Saguaro versus TSN shows very well how much good land contributes to a good course.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2010, 09:47:37 PM »
 8) ;D :D ;) :)

John Moore hit it.....flat is tough.  Interesting enough if you can cut away from flat you can make it quite dramatic and fun...moving and building up is much more difficult ,  and expensive....it doesn't look like it happened in nature, whether it was by wind , water or ice ...

John Moore II

Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2010, 09:51:30 PM »
8) ;D :D ;) :)

John Moore hit it.....flat is tough.  Interesting enough if you can cut away from flat you can make it quite dramatic and fun...moving and building up is much more difficult ,  and expensive....it doesn't look like it happened in nature, whether it was by wind , water or ice ...

You could make it look natural, I mean, doesn't Rawls at Texas Tech look somewhat natural? I honestly don't know, I've never been near it. But the only way that was possible was to move a large amount of dirt, and that wouldn't be possible on a flat site with a low water table (accurately describes just about all the remaining land in Florida, and the Gulf and Southeastern coasts). Most of the time there just isn't much you can do with flat land.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2010, 10:17:26 PM »
...
You could make it look natural, I mean, doesn't Rawls at Texas Tech look somewhat natural? ...

Have you even seen pictures of it? From the pictures, I think Tom should have done a recall ala Toyota variety. Recall everything! Even Jawbone Creek Country Club is better.

But then, I have only seen pictures, so I know my opinion is illegitimate. Thank you Patrick Mucci and Matt Ward.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

John Moore II

Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2010, 10:23:10 PM »
...
You could make it look natural, I mean, doesn't Rawls at Texas Tech look somewhat natural? ...

Have you even seen pictures of it? From the pictures, I think Tom should have done a recall ala Toyota variety. Recall everything! Even Jawbone Creek Country Club is better.

But then, I have only seen pictures, so I know my opinion is illegitimate. Thank you Patrick Mucci and Matt Ward.


Yes, I have seen pictures and I think it looks reasonably natural. I mean, to me it doesn't look obviously manufactured. I don't see any waterfalls, rock walls and the like. Sure, it was produced and manufactured, but it doesn't look terrible.

TEPaul

Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2010, 10:27:04 PM »
Master Wiggett:

We are impressed with the alacrity of your grammatical fix. Consequently, a 54.5 demerit credit will be awarded to you post haste. Z may be for Zebra if you are in the former Anglo-African (often pronounced at the home club "afreeakian") colonies but at home Zed is generally for Z. I'm sorry, it would be the perverse of the latter. Drat, belay that too, the RE-verse of the ladder---I mean latter.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 10:30:30 PM by TEPaul »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2010, 10:37:06 PM »

Yes, I have seen pictures and I think it looks reasonably natural. ...

???
Natural? My thoughts were, ... that looks awful.

After that, I guess I won't get invited by any of the members to play there. ;D

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

John Moore II

Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2010, 12:39:54 PM »

Yes, I have seen pictures and I think it looks reasonably natural. ...

???
Natural? My thoughts were, ... that looks awful.

After that, I guess I won't get invited by any of the members to play there. ;D

What do you want the course to look like? I mean, really. Tell me (and Tom) what he could have done to make it better. I'm sure Mr. Doak will take all your suggestions to heart and go back and ask TT if he can rebuild the course at no cost to them. Or maybe, he built a good course that has good strategy, is fun to play and looks as natural as possible. Every course can't be built on the same land as Cypress Point or Sand Hills, my friend.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2010, 01:09:59 PM »
Sure, if you want world class golf you have to have a bit of movement in the land or at least some funky rolls ala TOC.  BUT, I don't see why one can't build a very good course on flat land - so what if some stuff doesn't look natural?  What matters most is how the course plays.  The older I get the more I appreciate this more subtle (and easy to walk) architecture.  Have a look at New Zealand and then see if flat golf can't work.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Chechesee Creek & Old Barnwell

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2010, 01:54:19 PM »
Chicago GC seemed to be pretty flat as I saw - under a blanket of snow. I keep commending Royal Antwerp as an excellent flat course.

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2010, 04:47:21 PM »
If Talking Stick North is among the best courses that can be presented, then in my mind that answers the question. I know some of you really like it and I would admit it is well designed, but I still don't think its among the best in Arizona let alone on a larger scale.  The difference between what C & C did at Saguaro versus TSN shows very well how much good land contributes to a good course.

This is the point I was going to make, but you beat me to it. :)

I have played Talking Stick North and it is a good course with several really excellent holes, but generally it's not very memorable and virtually non-GCA afficianados thinks it's a boring course and would rather play the parkland-style South course there. I suppose it proves that interesting architecture is possible on flat land. But as you point out, WeKoPa Saguaro just a short drive from Talking Stick shows what the same design philosophy can produce on more interesting land.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2010, 03:53:21 AM »
Thanks for the replies guys :)

Firstly, I don't believe that good golf course design means that the course needs to look natural. Take a look at Sean A's threads on Kington Golf Club which has modelling that is most obviously man made but looks right. For that matter any bunker on an inland course (with very few exceptions) is an obvious man made feature but this does not stop many people enthusing about it. Even on links courses the bunkering is often very obviously artificial with its sod walls.

I think the drainage issue is probably the biggest problem though flat does not mean completely level. What has always suprised me is that the main drainage on courses are not set at 4 to 6 feet of depth. Most drainage at course is set in the first couple of feet when really it would be better laid much deeper as this would drain the general ground and not just the very top surface. On a flat site the use of deep drainage ditchs is something that used to be used in the past but are very rarely seen these days.

I do believe that it should be possible to work with a flat piece of land and produce a great course without moving vast amounts of soil. Even placing a small mound in front of the green such as that on the 4th green TOC and the clever placing of bunkers or ridges around the green can make for a very challenging holes. I do think that width (wide fairways) is very important on a flat course.

Lastly, I find that it is the options and the challenges created by those options that make for a good design. The focus should be more on the substance of the course and not so much the look or surrounds.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is flat seen as being so difficult?
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2010, 04:02:50 AM »
The sheer number of threads proclaiming how bad Florida golf courses are is a perfect testimony as to why flat is so difficult
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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back