Subtle or boring

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are 4 layers of golf course:


1. Full of feature and in your face
2. Full of feature but “of” the land
3. Subtle and full of interest
4. Subtle and bland


Courses that fall in to 2 or 3 are usually excellent, sometimes great.


Courses in 4 are rarely excellent.


Courses in 1 can frequently be excellent but are rarely great. There is also a subset of 1 which is “land full of feature but golf course detail bland”.


Here endeth my generalisation.

Expanding on above to give some examples, when I say "feature" I tend to mean built feature or at the very least designed feature. Bear in mind, I haven't actually seen 2 or 3 of the courses I am referring to below so don't take offence! Perception...:


Type 1: Mike Strantz, Whistling Straits, Sweetens Cove, Castle Course, Castle Stuart, Kingsley. Pete Dye.
Type 2: A lot of American Golden Age or modern minimalist courses. Pretenders in the modern age are slotting in to "Type 1" more and more often. Links like St. Patrick's, St. Enodoc, RCD to a degree. MacRaynor probably straddles 1 & 2 quite often.
Type 3: The Loop, Deal, Portmarnock, Dunbar, Muirfield (although the bunkers almost rule this out), TOC (although the greens and quirk almost rule this out), Royal Aberdeen, Hoylake, Carnoustie, Walton Heath. Woodhall Spa and Ganton straddle 2 & 3 because of bunkers alone. Otherwise they'd sit in here.
Type 4: Bundoran, King's Links, couple of third tier Heathland courses, couple of Eddie Hackett courses on less inspired land. Don't know the bland ones in the States.

[John Kavanaugh]

Saying something is “subtle” is a perfect out if you don’t know what you are taking about. Especially if the person you are talking to doesn’t know shit either.

I expect the subtleties of this conversation will be lost on you. 

Exactly.

[Mark Pearce]

Is Muirfield "subtle".  I guess for the purpose of this thread it is.  It's relatively flat.  It lacks striking land movement.  The greens are not dramatic (and certainly not as dramatic as YOC).  Some people find it boring as they hit and run and miss lunch.  So maybe Muirfield is an example of a great course some people find boring.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Is Muirfield "subtle".  I guess for the purpose of this thread it is.  It's relatively flat.  It lacks striking land movement.  The greens are not dramatic (and certainly not as dramatic as YOC).  Some people find it boring as they hit and run and miss lunch.  So maybe Muirfield is an example of a great course some people find boring.

Interesting, but the bunkering is anything but subtle.

[mike_malone]

Is there a difference between “subtle “ and “ understated “?  I find Hidden Creek to be understated. The features are there but spread out so that it’s not loud.

[Brett Meyer]

Pinehurst #2 used to sometimes be described as subtle.  Pete Dye had a great rant about that.  "The first green has a bunker six feet deep on the left, and a bunch of convex rolls in short grass off to the right, and you call that subtle?"

I would not say that PH2 is subtle, but up the road Pine Needles fits the bill, particularly the green complexes.For a links course, Brora actually strikes me as subtle overall.Except for Number 8, St George’s Hill is subtle. A good example of Ally’s number 2 category.

Ira

There's certainly a lot on Pinehurst no. 2 that isn't subtle i.e. left of 1 and 5, over the green on 3 or 8, the entire 15th green. But to me, much of what makes that course so great is subtle. It's the 1-2 foot rise along the right side of the 1st green and the small bumps right of it, the larger and smaller slopes around of the 2nd green, that the slopes around the 14th green become longer the deeper into the green you go, etc. And probably the main reason that people have called no. 2 subtle is that it isn't visually dramatic. So I still think of no. 2 as a subtle golf course even though there is a lot that isn't subtle.

Ira, I'd agree that St. George's Hill is a subtle golf course but I don't think I've ever read a good explanation of why people think that. To me, St. George's Hill is subtle because of how the slopes in the fairway influence driving. You want to lay up to the top of the hill on 12, hit a draw or hold close to the left side on 13 so your drive doesn't catch the slope and kick right toward the woods, carry the hump in the right side of the fairway on 17 so your drive doesn't kick left and leave you with a blind shot, etc. It's easy to miss all of that if you aren't playing close attention. More than any course I can think of, the holes seem to be designed around the slopes in the fairways and there's a real premium on figuring out how to account for these in your driving.

[Sean_A]

Pinehurst #2 used to sometimes be described as subtle.  Pete Dye had a great rant about that.  "The first green has a bunker six feet deep on the left, and a bunch of convex rolls in short grass off to the right, and you call that subtle?"

I would not say that PH2 is subtle, but up the road Pine Needles fits the bill, particularly the green complexes.For a links course, Brora actually strikes me as subtle overall.Except for Number 8, St George’s Hill is subtle. A good example of Ally’s number 2 category.

Ira

There's certainly a lot on Pinehurst no. 2 that isn't subtle i.e. left of 1 and 5, over the green on 3 or 8, the entire 15th green. But to me, much of what makes that course so great is subtle. It's the 1-2 foot rise along the right side of the 1st green and the small bumps right of it, the larger and smaller slopes around of the 2nd green, that the slopes around the 14th green become longer the deeper into the green you go, etc. And probably the main reason that people have called no. 2 subtle is that it isn't visually dramatic. So I still think of no. 2 as a subtle golf course even though there is a lot that isn't subtle.

Ira, I'd agree that St. George's Hill is a subtle golf course but I don't think I've ever read a good explanation of why people think that. To me, St. George's Hill is subtle because of how the slopes in the fairway influence driving. You want to lay up to the top of the hill on 12, hit a draw or hold close to the left side on 13 so your drive doesn't catch the slope and kick right toward the woods, carry the hump in the right side of the fairway on 17 so your drive doesn't kick left and leave you with a blind shot, etc. It's easy to miss all of that if you aren't playing close attention. More than any course I can think of, the holes seem to be designed around the slopes in the fairways and there's a real premium on figuring out how to account for these in your driving.

I think of St George's as much too hilly to be subtle.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

I think of St George's as much too hilly to be subtle.

Ciao

It's not that the property is subtle, it's that the way the holes are laid out over it to favor/punish different kinds of drives is.

[John Kavanaugh]

I’ve played a course where John Lennon once lived and recently one where The Weekend lives. Both are as subtle as a cloud.

[Bruce Katona]

JK:

"Through court order I have been ordered to stop drinking bourbon and enjoy wine"

[/size]Wine is a great alternative to harder spirits and can spur on hours of conversation (like GCA) with others who "may always be incorrect, but never without an opinion" regarding wine subtilties.[/color]

[/size]Said order is from Mrs. JK, Dr. or His/Her Honor.  Hopefully all is well with you medically.[/color]

[/size]BK
[/color]
[/size][/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Is Muirfield "subtle".  I guess for the purpose of this thread it is.  It's relatively flat.  It lacks striking land movement.  The greens are not dramatic (and certainly not as dramatic as YOC).  Some people find it boring as they hit and run and miss lunch.  So maybe Muirfield is an example of a great course some people find boring.

Muirfield is such an interesting litmus test for people in talking about architecture, in my experience.  Even Ran misses some of its charms.


While the ground movement is surprisingly gentle for a true links -- because as Andrew Kirkaldy observed, it's only kind of a true links -- there is more tilt to the property than most people notice, which both comes into play and adds a lot of visual interest [it's why the views of the Firth of Forth from #2 and #12 among other holes are so good].


The set of greens is also excellent, which is the only reason it managed to get to a 10 on the Doak Scale.  There are several of them that just seem to be laying on the ground [like #1 with its tilt away, or #9 with its pronounced left-to-right tilt, or #10 which is the subtlest of punchbowls].  But there are also several with really good internal contour, like 2 and 5 and 11 and 15.  There is quite the variety to them without it being overwhelming.


And, the bunkering is not just challenging, it's also the most beautiful shaping and revetting work on any course I know.


If only the rough weren't so nasty it might be an 11. 

[Michael Chadwick]

Muirfield is such an interesting litmus test for people in talking about architecture, in my experience. 

The above encapsulates why I think there's value to this thread and in Tommy's original question. Subtlety for me is not a negative descriptor for a golf course. By definition it possesses complexity and inscrutability, but the scale of its features, built or topographical, are more understated. If someone wants to use a different word, fine, but the primary point is that it's important to recognize the shared greatness of Muirfield or Pinehurst 2 in tandem with their meaningful differences to Oakmont or NGLA.


What I interpret in Tom's suggestion is that nuanced designs can be harder to appreciate than their more audacious counterparts, and I'd argue that undoubtedly factors into prevailing trends in modern design. It's why the ethos behind Brambles feels almost counterintuitive in comparison to Cabot St. Lucia or Te Arai South--and those are from the same firm no less!


Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.


Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.       

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’ve had this conversation so many times without much purchase on here that I can’t bring myself to repeat it.


I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.

[Tom_Doak]

Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.

Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.       

I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.

This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.




You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed.  They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go.  The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.


I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth.  Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention.  Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned.  But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.


The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess.  Of course, some people like excess.  Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.

[Mike Bodo]

Sean's earlier depiction of The Loop and it subtelties is very much akin to Muirield in a number of ways. It's fairly straight forward in its approach, as what you see is pretty much what you get. While there's ample room to play from the tee, trouble lurks where you don't expect it. Though you never feel you're out of a hole when you do make a mistake, there are number of places you can't recover from if your ball ends up there. To score well you need to approach the greens from certain spots in the fairway and understand how the ball reacts on the ground near the green, as running the ball on to them is sometimes the best (and only) play. Like some who have played Muirfield and walked away unimpressed, there's a contingent of golfers that don't get what the big to do is about The Loop other than its a reversible course. They can't comprehend and appreciate its nuances, design subtleties and rustic beauty, where the Weiskopf course at Forest Dunes is more in their wheelhouse and what they're accustomed to seeing elsewhere. Lastly, much like Muirfield The Loop doesn't photograph particularly well from gound level, yet is visually impressive from above ground.

[Sean_A]

Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.

Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.       

I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.

This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.




You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed.  They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go.  The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.


I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth.  Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention.  Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned.  But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.


The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess.  Of course, some people like excess.  Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.

Excess is exactly what I think about Muirfield's bunkering...which imo is the single biggest definer of the course. To me the bunkering is not subtle at all. The bunkering is relentlessly in the golfer's face. The second biggest definer of the course is the rough, again relentlessly in the golfer's face. The subtle part of the design is the property and the greens.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.

Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.       

I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.

This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.




You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed.  They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go.  The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.


I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth.  Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention.  Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned.  But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.


The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess.  Of course, some people like excess.  Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.

My comment was based on Michael’s last paragraph, not his choice of examples in the previous one.


Your comment about building greens to reduce the need for other features is exactly where I am coming from though. The point is not that features need to be tame or boring. It is that they need to be measured in their place on the golf course and not overdone in type or number. If a course has artistic greens that sit in an otherwise natural landscape, this “feels” right. I generally dislike visual overload when it has been designed / built.


EDIT to respond to Sean also:


Muirfield’s bunkering is far from excess. You can only say that for their number. They generally sit low in the landscape and are very artistically shaped without being in your face. Because they are the primary built features on the course, they provide consistency in an understated way. Their positioning adds to this.

[Sean_A]

Subtlety risks being unnoticed, undramatic, and boring in the eye of a beholder. No doubt there are golfers who travel to TOC, PH2, or Muirfield and are underwhelmed with regard to their own tastes. But those three are noteworthy examples that greatness is achievable and should remain aspirational at smaller undulations, even if that means there are people who will fail to see it.

Modern architects need to dare to be boring! Because straddling that line, and executing it well, may in fact be more challenging to accomplish than turning the dial to 11 at all times.       

I like your last paragraph a lot, Michael. Just replace “boring” with “understated”. I much prefer classy, dialled back design to a lot of stuff I see out there these days which is as much about designers / shapers showing off.

This is such a weird conversation, because if a young designer built a modern course that had the greens of Pinehurst #2, the bunkering of Muirfield, or anything remotely similar to The Old Course at St. Andrews, people would not call it boring . . . you would probably accuse it of being overshaped.




You are right that there is a lot of showing off these days, because as Michael points out, the one thing that the younger generation cannot abide is the term from the first sentence I quoted that you haven't used . . . being unnoticed.  They all understand that they have to make a name for themselves to get where they want to go.  The problem is where that becomes more the point of their work, than how it plays on the golf course.


I know they all must think that I did the same thing back in my youth.  Luckily, I didn't have to, because minimalism was so different to what everyone else had been doing, that what I didn't do, attracted attention.  Yes, some of my early courses had more undulations in the greens than most modern designs, because I loved that part of many old courses, and it was one of the things that modern designers had abandoned.  But I was building those greens to reduce the need for other features, rather than to get attention as a great shaper.


The easiest way to contrast yourself with the best of minimalism is to be maximalist, and that's inevitably going to lead to excess.  Of course, some people like excess.  Quite possibly the majority of the next generation of golfers will prefer it.

My comment was based on Michael’s last paragraph, not his choice of examples in the previous one.


Your comment about building greens to reduce the need for other features is exactly where I am coming from though. The point is not that features need to be tame or boring. It is that they need to be measured in their place on the golf course and not overdone in type or number. If a course has artistic greens that sit in an otherwise natural landscape, this “feels” right. I generally dislike visual overload when it has been designed / built.

If it looks cool, I like designed visual features. I also like artistic greens set in a natural landscape. I don't feel any need or desire to choose or decide what is best or better. It depends on how well executed the work is. These two stark choices and everything else is a chance to add variety to design.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I like designed visual features as well, Sean. I think many designers these days don’t know when to stop “adding”.

[Sean_A]

I like designed visual features as well, Sean. I think many designers these days don’t know when to stop “adding”.

That may be true. I don't see enough new designs to draw a reasonable conclusion. Although, I remember thinking the Castle Course was over cooked..not nearly to the degree some others thought, but ott. I would like to see it again. I have heard some say the Meadowbrook job was overcooked. I can see their points, but I am not bothered because its well executed. I have heard the same said about The Loop. I don't agree, but if folks don't like the concept of defending a course at the green as the primary feature of a course then it's problematic. Of course there is Tobacco Road. Sure, I can understand the complaints. Its in your face stuff. I like it, but in a reserved way...I don't think it's great. I am probably quite forgiving when it comes to whimsical architecture. I am much less forgiving about blatant test your game architecture...mainly because I think it's difficult to be really creative and produce test your game architecture. Augusta and TOC pass the test. But there can't be too many of these examples on the planet.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot. Even though there are numerous features, they are not shouting out at you to be noticed.


It is the “look at me” school of architecture that I’m not a particular fan of.

[Tom_Doak]

The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot.

Careful, the No Laying Up team are about to have a conniption.

[Sean_A]

The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot. Even though there are numerous features, they are not shouting out at you to be noticed.

I agree. I think a decent number of naysayers may not be used to firm conditions. Although, some simply don't care about a reversible course. They want more interest in fairways.

Ciao

[Mike Bodo]

The Loop is definitely not overcooked. It shows the difference between a team that can judge the right level of restraint and one that cannot.

Careful, the No Laying Up team are about to have a conniption.

LOL! From what I can recall TC was the only one of the guys who had issue with The Loop. I found it somewhat shocking considering the number of links courses in Scotland and Ireland he's played and raved about while filming for NLU and how many of your course designs he loves. He got off on the wrong foot that day and the course got in his head to the point he couldn't see past his own shitty golf. Had he played good I'm sure he'd have a different reaction. Of the four, Big Randy "got" The Loop and really enjoyed it.

[Mike_Young]

I'm a fan of subtle.  BUT if subtleness is not part of the strategy then it could often be described as bland.  AND, I'm not sure the average golfer considers strategy.