|
Post by gregfordyce on Feb 28, 2017 15:50:15 GMT -5
OK, so I thought it would be nice to have one single thread devoted purely to golf course architecture - ideas, thoughts, comments, observations, debates, historical and real life references, etc, etc. I realize this is a broad subject that can be drilled down into hundreds of different sub-topics of course design, but a "go-to" thread for all things golf course architecture-related, from a higher-altitude-view is something I've wanted to see. So here we are! I'm hoping that everyone interested in golf course design - generally, or specifically to TGC/golf video games - will pop in from time to time to contribute something of value.
I'll just kick things off by quoting one of my favorite course architects, William Flynn (Shinnecock Hills, Cherry Hills, etc.). He described the role of the golf course architect: "The principle consideration of an architect is to hold the interest of a player from the first tee to the last green. The way we create interest is by careful placement of bunkering and other hazards to create decisions. Decisions lead to strategy and options." As another famous architect, Bobby Weed, says: "Options equal interest." Notice how the words "difficulty" or "challenge" are not mentioned. The difficulty and challenge is inherent in the number and types of options and interest that is created by the designer.
So if interest is created by placement of bunkers and other hazards, starting off on a discussion of those seems like a good place to start this thread. Or not! I'd like to keep this open and free-flowing, and seeing how it evolves and flows into other areas of golf course design as the thread is added to over time.
I'll hand off this thread with another quote, on bunkers, by Ian Andrew: "What gets a player thinking is the difficulty of the recovery. If a player faces a bunker where any club is an option, then he will hug the bunker seeking the ideal line because there is no fear of missing the shot. He will also swing without fear since there is nothing to lose and nothing to get nervous about. How can that hazard offer any strategy but for the high handicappers who fear sand in general? If the bunker is nasty and recovery unlikely, the payer aims away out of fear. He will make a tentative swing to steer away from the trouble rather than hitting a confident stroke. This occurs when a bunker has enough presence to get into the player's head. If there is no risk, why should a player exercise either judgment or control? Players often complain about the recovery from such a bunker but if he has attempted an aggressive line and failed you must ask them why a safer line wasn't chosen? I've never understood why a deep bunker in a key location is unfair, when the architect provides either width or an alternative route. As Donald Ross said, 'Often the highest compliment of a bunker is when it is criticized. There is no such thing as a misplaced bunker. Regardless of where a bunker may be, it is the business of the player to avoid it.'"
|
|
|
Post by welikeitroughnc on Feb 28, 2017 17:11:26 GMT -5
Love the bunkering comments as I think a truly penalizing bunker is so sweet to design lol pot bunkers happen to be my favorites
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Feb 28, 2017 18:26:21 GMT -5
I agree Mitch! Related to that, here's another quote by Ian Andrew on bunker placement:
"Why not in the middle of play like the Principal’s Nose at St. Andrews?This may be another of the finest bunkers in the history of the game. The bunker is exactly where you want to play. Go safely to the left but receive a much tougher angle (for your approach shot); play right, risking the out of bounds, and get rewarded with the ideal approach line (to the hole). That is a superior fairway bunker placement and outstanding strategy." Several of my courses have gotten criticism of bunker placement, i.e. "hate how you put so many bunkers right in the middle of the landing zone of the fairway." But if attention was paid, it would be noticed that 1) there is room for a well-placed shot on either side of said bunker, and one of them will result in a less-than-ideal second shot, and the other one will yield the perfect approach. I.e., just as Mr. Andrew states above - your basic risk/reward strategy. Wide-open fairways with no risk bore the hell out of me. As stated in the first post, keeping interest is the key. Although of course that is a subjective term - what is "interesting" to some is frustrating as hell to others.
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Feb 28, 2017 19:10:10 GMT -5
Love this thread already. Hope to see lots of discussions. I've also thought about doing this sort of thing. Fascinating subject golf course design. When I get some time I'll try and pull out some examples of hole design... Either real or TGC based, not yet decided. The quotes above on bunkers are great and very true. My favourite form of golf is definitely links. One of the things I love about it are that the hazards are relatively small but they are in many ways much more significant than bunkers in other types of golf. The fact that you often get much more run out increases the chances of them being found and if they are found they are often punishing. Contours will either guide the ball towards the hole or towards a hazard, you require skill, accuracy and strategy. A pot bunker IRL is rarely a bail out option... Especially given the likelihood of being up against the face or having feet outside to be able to attack the pin. I once shot +1 gross around Princes in Kent (was a 9hcp at the time on the way down), I attribute that largely based on the fact I found no bunkers that day both due to strategy, execution and at times luck. Good links design IMO invites creativity, offers options, punishes rash play and excites the player. If I'm looking at an approach shot and thinking not just about what happens in the air but also when it hits the ground... Then I'm a happy golfer. Will try and come back with some examples to illustrate what I mean. I think many design by accident or instinct... And that is fine, but knowledge is power
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Feb 28, 2017 19:33:55 GMT -5
The quote I remember most about designing- "I suck at designing." (Jacob Kessler, 2016) (lol)So I see a couple of links designers in here. I actually have trouble with those types of courses. The way I get a vision for my design is to have a landmark to build around. At my Wichita course, there are two: the farm (holes 2-5) and the rocky cliff (11 and 16). For my current WIP, it's the river. For links courses, the base is usually a coastline (which I absolutely CANNOT do decently). Anyway, that's my input. Good idea for the thread, gregfordyce.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Feb 28, 2017 22:22:02 GMT -5
Great thread and really great points about bunker placement. The intent of bunkers should not be just to punish but to force decisions. Decisions are what make golf interesting.
I have always loved how golf was played at the time it originated. Holes were loosely designed and it was up to the player to figure out how best to get to the hole. There were no conventions about green size and fairway width and no need to conform to maintenance practices. Golf courses were laid over the natural landscape incorporating interesting landforms. Golf courses were not really about being a stringent test, they were obstacle courses that required exploration and creativity to master. Golf has since evolved and perhaps lost some of that original inspiration. I'm always looking at how to bring that inspiration to my courses and think it's an interesting way to approach golf design for others.
Look forward to this thread!
|
|
|
Post by SAM on Mar 1, 2017 4:55:03 GMT -5
Great idea for a topic Greg....
Positive: "Good sight lines" It's all about the sight lines for me - especially in a video game where the golfers perspective is mainly forced. What the designer chooses to put in those sight lines can greatly affect the "wow! factor."
Negative: "Little or no variation" Sometimes I feel like I'm playing the same hole 4 or 5 times on a course - really bugs me if it's consecutive holes.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Mar 1, 2017 7:20:00 GMT -5
Great thread and really great points about bunker placement. The intent of bunkers should not be just to punish but to force decisions. Decisions are what make golf interesting. I have always loved how golf was played at the time it originated. Holes were loosely designed and it was up to the player to figure out how best to get to the hole. There were no conventions about green size and fairway width and no need to conform to maintenance practices. Golf courses were laid over the natural landscape incorporating interesting landforms. Golf courses were not really about being a stringent test, they were obstacle courses that required exploration and creativity to master. Golf has since evolved and perhaps lost some of that original inspiration. I'm always looking at how to bring that inspiration to my courses and think it's an interesting way to approach golf design for others. Look forward to this thread! Really good points, RJ and Sam. I've always been a fan of golf course design that utilizes the existing natural terrain and features as much as possible also; which is why - like Pyates - I prefer links golf. It's too bad so many designers IRL don't see that nature makes many design decisions for you by providing natural features - hollows, scars, etc. - to assist in the routing of the course. Especially bunkering, I love natural ones like the ones at Sand Hills or Barnbougle. Deep and rugged and raw natural gashes in the terrain. If the routing of the hole is designed using existing features like those (even if they must be enhanced/tweaked a bit), there is a more natural flow to the hole also, instead of that feeling of playing on something that has been imposed on the land rather than being a part of it - like RJ says.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Mar 1, 2017 10:01:04 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. You basically summed up my design philosophy. The only problem with this very natural approach is that it is difficult to realize it in the designer. It would be nice to eventually get a finer grain of resolution that could be applied to bunkers to give them a more natural and rugged feel like the ones at Sandhills and Friars Head and so many of those great lay of the land courses. Having played The courses down in Bandon a few times I've seen first hand how this approach translates IRL. It's simply incredible the amount of variety of hole designs that are in those courses. Every hole revolves around a specific feature that was already present in the landscape. Best golfing day of my life was 36 holes in one day Pacific Dunes followed by Old Macdonald. Have been trying to recreate that in TGC ever since. I find it very difficult to design from scratch. Without an interesting lanform to respond to it seems like you are limited creatively to what is already in your head. When I have attempted to design from flat my hole designs always feel formulaic and banal. Great thread and really great points about bunker placement. The intent of bunkers should not be just to punish but to force decisions. Decisions are what make golf interesting. I have always loved how golf was played at the time it originated. Holes were loosely designed and it was up to the player to figure out how best to get to the hole. There were no conventions about green size and fairway width and no need to conform to maintenance practices. Golf courses were laid over the natural landscape incorporating interesting landforms. Golf courses were not really about being a stringent test, they were obstacle courses that required exploration and creativity to master. Golf has since evolved and perhaps lost some of that original inspiration. I'm always looking at how to bring that inspiration to my courses and think it's an interesting way to approach golf design for others. Look forward to this thread! Really good points, RJ and Sam. I've always been a fan of golf course design that utilizes the existing natural terrain and features as much as possible also; which is why - like Pyates - I prefer links golf. It's too bad so many designers IRL don't see that nature makes many design decisions for you by providing natural features - hollows, scars, etc. - to assist in the routing of the course. Especially bunkering, I love natural ones like the ones at Sand Hills or Barnbougle. Deep and rugged and raw natural gashes in the terrain. If the routing of the hole is designed using existing features like those (even if they must be enhanced/tweaked a bit), there is a more natural flow to the hole also, instead of that feeling of playing on something that has been imposed on the land rather than being a part of it - like RJ says.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Mar 1, 2017 10:53:59 GMT -5
To add to my comment about formulaic hole designs I should note that almost all the holes at Old MacDonald are based on template holes from the British isles. But what makes it unique is that they are still adapted to the natural features of the site. They don't feel unnatural or forced.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Mar 1, 2017 11:04:26 GMT -5
I use the same approach. I build the big landmarks first and route course around them. discovering and routing holes on a site is one of the most enjoyable parts of design The quote I remember most about designing- "I suck at designing." (Jacob Kessler, 2016) (lol)So I see a couple of links designers in here. I actually have trouble with those types of courses. The way I get a vision for my design is to have a landmark to build around. At my Wichita course, there are two: the farm (holes 2-5) and the rocky cliff (11 and 16). For my current WIP, it's the river. For links courses, the base is usually a coastline (which I absolutely CANNOT do decently). Anyway, that's my input. Good idea for the thread, gregfordyce.
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Mar 1, 2017 12:10:49 GMT -5
In regards to "options", one of the most frustrating things to be in TGC1 is the inability for us as designers to really give the golfer options. For example:
A.) Most of the "decision making" comes at the 265 mark. This is usually where the designer places hazards, split the fairway, bend the fairway etc. Some of this will be alleviated in TGC2 with club options and tee options. It should hopefully help us become more creative as designers and think outside the box.
B.) Even the decisions made at the 265 mark rarely actually cause a decision. Most golfers look at the wind, know how far they can hit it (without penalty) and go. It's still a decision but there's always a right answer, not really a choice.
C.) No one really looks at the best angles while playing, at least not that I've seen, (correct me if wrong.) Soft and Medium are so soft that it doesn't really matter what angle the approach comes from. Firm can make a difference but the ball physics aren't correct anyways and it's hard to play a firm course the correct way.
D.) Narrow windows like the one described on the Pot Bunker post earlier don't really matter. No one misses narrow landing areas because accuracy is so easy in the game. Again TGC2 might alleviate this, but for now the wider, but less yardage/more yardage but narrower, risk/reward shot doesn't really exist.
This reads like a giant list of complaints, but that's not really my intention. I'm looking forward to seeing what TGC2 brings and whether or not it can give more weight to "decisions." I think it'll make for a much more rewarding experience around here and help us grow as designers.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Mar 1, 2017 12:46:38 GMT -5
In regards to "options", one of the most frustrating things to be in TGC1 is the inability for us as designers to really give the golfer options. For example: A.) Most of the "decision making" comes at the 265 mark. This is usually where the designer places hazards, split the fairway, bend the fairway etc. Some of this will be alleviated in TGC2 with club options and tee options. It should hopefully help us become more creative as designers and think outside the box. B.) Even the decisions made at the 265 mark rarely actually cause a decision. Most golfers look at the wind, know how far they can hit it (without penalty) and go. It's still a decision but there's always a right answer, not really a choice. C.) No one really looks at the best angles while playing, at least not that I've seen, (correct me if wrong.) Soft and Medium are so soft that it doesn't really matter what angle the approach comes from. Firm can make a difference but the ball physics aren't correct anyways and it's hard to play a firm course the correct way. D.) Narrow windows like the one described on the Pot Bunker post earlier don't really matter. No one misses narrow landing areas because accuracy is so easy in the game. Again TGC2 might alleviate this, but for now the wider, but less yardage/more yardage but narrower, risk/reward shot doesn't really exist. This reads like a giant list of complaints, but that's not really my intention. I'm looking forward to seeing what TGC2 brings and whether or not it can give more weight to "decisions." I think it'll make for a much more rewarding experience around here and help us grow as designers. Cheers. Spot on Scampi, doesn't come across as complaining, it is just fact, dial a distance makes 90% of what you do in the designer for show... if TGC2 delivers those things then it will be a huge game changer for us designers. Most of what I am thinking about in terms of course design right now is looking at real world golf in the hope that when TGC2 is released good course design aligns more with real courses than TGC1 courses. Now I am part of the beta so I'm not going to talk about the state of TGC2 and whether or not it is/will be delivering on its premise... but if it can then it will be HUGE The way I have kinda worked around those limitations is to design for multi pin and multi tees with the intention that each combination makes the hole play different as best as I can but at the end of the day the players at most see 4 setups and risks are often tamed to become almost non existent
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Mar 1, 2017 12:52:38 GMT -5
I use the same approach. I build the big landmarks first and route course around them. discovering and routing holes on a site is one of the most enjoyable parts of design The quote I remember most about designing- "I suck at designing." (Jacob Kessler, 2016) (lol)So I see a couple of links designers in here. I actually have trouble with those types of courses. The way I get a vision for my design is to have a landmark to build around. At my Wichita course, there are two: the farm (holes 2-5) and the rocky cliff (11 and 16). For my current WIP, it's the river. For links courses, the base is usually a coastline (which I absolutely CANNOT do decently). Anyway, that's my input. Good idea for the thread, gregfordyce . Using the land around you is definitely what I try to emulate in TGC. I have tried both making a natural looking plot with landmarks etc and fitting in a course (much like a real course architect) and also building the plot as I go but trying to do so in a natural way. I take a lot of inspiration from the English countryside around me, I can rarely go anywhere without thinking how I would put a hole on a plot of land. Whether a course is links or otherwise, I get a real kick out of making a course that feels like it belongs. That picture posted by greg is just beautiful IMO, wise I could get a TGC screenshot to look like that
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Mar 1, 2017 16:36:29 GMT -5
Really good points. I, too, wish the GNCD could do so much more than it can, in terms of emulating RL conditions more. Keeping my fingers crossed about TGC2!
Here are some cool photos as examples of what we have been discussing, using the natural features in hole design and bunkers. Below is #4 at Barnbougle in Tasmania, as it is today:
And below is roughly the same shot, 14 years earlier, as it existed before construction of the hole: Obviously they did some contouring, and made some changes. However, they utilized the existing sand dune/depressions and for the most part kept the terrain contours in place, as well as the existing natural grasses after planting the fairway and green turf.
|
|