|
Post by gheebuttersnaps on Mar 27, 2019 17:10:33 GMT -5
Article I came across today I though was interesting: www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/the-return-of-the-straight-line-in-course-architectureI've been thinking a lot about this topic recently while I was trying to better understand the fascination with "old school" geometrical design in golf. Personally, I lean more towards "natural" looking designs in golf, but I definitely appreciate this style as well. I usually try to incorporate some geometric features, but I don't think it always translates well into this game and I end up "rounding" stuff off.
|
|
|
Post by theclv24 on Mar 27, 2019 19:51:08 GMT -5
I was lucky enough to walk Chicago GC last summer, and the thing that gets lost in TGC with the scout cam and overhead view is that from a ground level playing view, you could almost forget there are any geometric shapes at Chicago. This obviously may not be true for every course, but in general MacDonald and Raynor seem to have done a great job of blending the holes into their surroundings. As an added bonus, the bigger geometric greens generally allow for more, and more interesting, pin placements than your standard round greens do.
I think geometric and natural shapes both have a place, and variety is best in golf. The only thing that I really truly don't like is fake mounding along the sides of holes, and fairways that zig and zag in and out between the mounds. I may be attributing incorrectly, but I think that was an 80's-90's design trend, and to me it screams fakeness way more than square greens do.
|
|
|
Post by gheebuttersnaps on Mar 27, 2019 20:39:11 GMT -5
The last part of your comment makes me think of Pet Dye's course at French Lick: All due respect to Mr. Dye, but I just find it goofy.
|
|
|
Post by gheebuttersnaps on Mar 27, 2019 20:41:00 GMT -5
This I like: This, not so much:
|
|
|
Post by gheebuttersnaps on Mar 27, 2019 20:51:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 28, 2019 2:44:20 GMT -5
Article I came across today I though was interesting: www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/the-return-of-the-straight-line-in-course-architectureI've been thinking a lot about this topic recently while I was trying to better understand the fascination with "old school" geometrical design in golf. Personally, I lean more towards "natural" looking designs in golf, but I definitely appreciate this style as well. I usually try to incorporate some geometric features, but I don't think it always translates well into this game and I end up "rounding" stuff off. One thing that always has me puzzled is when people say geometric shaping doesn't "translate well into this game." There are many gorgeous, natural looking old style courses in TGC. Not only that, the template courses give an unrivaled amount of variety and strategy than non template courses. There are are good number of modern designs that give great strategic value, but I find most courses to litteraly be 'bottle' fairways with sand/water 'cape' greens, overall. Rinse and repeat throughout.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 28, 2019 3:00:54 GMT -5
The last part of your comment makes me think of Pet Dye's course at French Lick: All due respect to Mr. Dye, but I just find it goofy. We can look at French Lick as and exception, though. It's widely known that this course is by far one of the most engineered courses in the world. Pete never hid that fact, he was proud of it.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 28, 2019 3:15:00 GMT -5
I think that course opened last September and ended up with mixed reviews. I know Andy from the Fried Egg played it and loved the front 9, but disliked the back, mostly down to "missed opportunities." Modern day designs using geometric are a lot sharper and look sort of HD compared to the older designs. Brian Silva is a good example.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 28, 2019 3:19:44 GMT -5
This I like: This, not so much: The bottom picture I would argue, is probably Raynor's most natural "short" hole. The whole of Blue Mound CC was built with a very, very low amount of turf being shifted, so you can't really argue against its naturalness. I think this debate almost always pops up based on the visuals of a geometric course, but that doesn't mean that these courses aren't natural. They're far more natural than most modern courses, today.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 28, 2019 4:26:13 GMT -5
I think the headline question is a bit of a cheeky one considering that the genesis of real course architecture in America started off with geometrically shaped courses. Look at your first ever eighteen hole course in the US, Chicago GC. To question if straight lines "belong" in course architecture is quite bizzare. Do we discount all the golden age courses with straight lines built by Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, Emmet, Fownes and Ross - the very men who ushered in the golden age of design?
I'd also like to point out that LOADS of British links courses have straight edged fairways. British links courses are THE genesis of golf as a whole. Do we discount all of these, too? Here's a couple of examples of straight edges in old links design...
Historically, straight lines are an integral part of golf architecture. Macdonald and Raynor were obviously influenced by not just the playability of links courses in Britain, but also how they looked and were shaped. You'd pretty much have to rewrite history to think that straight edges don't belong in golf architecture.
Very Interesting topic, by the way. 👍
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Mar 28, 2019 5:14:47 GMT -5
Straight lines aren’t natural in nature but they are natural in golf course design. To me, natural means that they fit the land they occupy. That doesn’t mean they “have always been there” because straight lines don’t exist in nature. So I don’t think you can use that argument. I really don’t think there’s a correlation there. The best holes/courses fit into the natural land they sit on the best. Compare the earliest courses in America: Chicago and The National. The two courses have very similar underlying philosophies but look drastically different aesthetically. Also, both occupy the land they sit on in a very natural way. And keep in mind that both sites are extremely different. There is no question “do they belong” because it’s obvious they do. And it’s not an argument of natural looking and occurring in nature because they’re just not the same thing. The best architects and courses use their land the best way possible and it doesn’t matter if there are straight lines or curved lines. That’s my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Mar 28, 2019 5:36:36 GMT -5
From an above post (I did the quoting feature wrong, sorry!): “One thing that always has me puzzled is when people say geometric shaping doesn't "translate well into this game." There are many gorgeous, natural looking old style courses in TGC. Not only that, the template courses give an unrivaled amount of variety and strategy than non template courses. There are are good number of modern designs that give great strategic value, but I find most courses to litteraly be 'bottle' fairways with sand/water 'cape' greens, overall. Rinse and repeat throughout.”
As much respect as I have for the Golden Age architects (and I promise, IT’S A LOT!), I’m not sure if I totally agree with the statement that they “give unrivaled variety and strategy” compared to non-template style courses. I think C&C, Doak, My man Gil, and DMK do a pretty good job overall. Can you give an example or two of courses that have a repeating bottle fairway, cape green design?
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 28, 2019 5:58:31 GMT -5
From an above post (I did the quoting feature wrong, sorry!): “One thing that always has me puzzled is when people say geometric shaping doesn't "translate well into this game." There are many gorgeous, natural looking old style courses in TGC. Not only that, the template courses give an unrivaled amount of variety and strategy than non template courses. There are are good number of modern designs that give great strategic value, but I find most courses to litteraly be 'bottle' fairways with sand/water 'cape' greens, overall. Rinse and repeat throughout.” As much respect as I have for the Golden Age architects (and I promise, IT’S A LOT!), I’m not sure if I totally agree with the statement that they “give unrivaled variety and strategy” compared to non-template style courses. I think C&C, Doak, My man Gil, and DMK do a pretty good job overall. Can you give an example or two of courses that have a repeating bottle fairway, cape green design? When I talked about lack of variety from the narrowed fairway to caped green design repeater, I was talking about created courses in this game, not the real world.
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Mar 28, 2019 8:47:21 GMT -5
The "geometric" style has grown on me, but I think what I don't like about it as much isn't the straight lines or geometric angles of it, but the fact it looks so engineered and manicured. I think MacKenzie did it best with his "camouflaging" style of bunkering, which is really just an excuse for me to post this old picture of one of my favorite holes in the world and how it looked even better back then just by letting the lips grow unkempt and not kept perfectly manicured.
|
|
|
Post by gheebuttersnaps on Mar 28, 2019 12:29:28 GMT -5
Article I came across today I though was interesting: www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/the-return-of-the-straight-line-in-course-architectureI've been thinking a lot about this topic recently while I was trying to better understand the fascination with "old school" geometrical design in golf. Personally, I lean more towards "natural" looking designs in golf, but I definitely appreciate this style as well. I usually try to incorporate some geometric features, but I don't think it always translates well into this game and I end up "rounding" stuff off. One thing that always has me puzzled is when people say geometric shaping doesn't "translate well into this game." There are many gorgeous, natural looking old style courses in TGC. Not only that, the template courses give an unrivaled amount of variety and strategy than non template courses. There are are good number of modern designs that give great strategic value, but I find most courses to litteraly be 'bottle' fairways with sand/water 'cape' greens, overall. Rinse and repeat throughout. This was more a comment on my personal experience. I can never get it to look good. I think you do a great job with it. Also, rjwils has a course where he pulls it off really well. Flat bottom bunkers are not easy to achieve in the designer, so when done poorly (like when I try them), they look particularly bad. Template holes are another topic I would love to debate about. The two concepts go hand and hand, but probably best suited for its own thread. Overrated. Lol, the title of this thread and that last comment were clickbaity/devils advocate type stuff. Just trying to stir the pot and start a conversation.
|
|