|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 9:26:05 GMT -5
Great summary thanks.
It seems big vs small golf is more related to economic constraints than anything. I’m still struggling a bit with the design philosophy part however. If you look at winter park for instance, this is a small scale cheap course that is highly thought out by some ambitious architects. I’m sure there is heaps of design intention embedded within the course. It may be limited due to the scale and constraints of the site but it’s there none the less. I’m pretty sure those guys planned every single shot possibility well before building the course. Is it possible to design unintentionally and without philosophy? If you take the economics out, the design philosophy of small golf seems pretty closely related to minimalism, if not the same. If there is a distinction philosophically how could it be applied in this game?
Is small golf just minimalism on a constrained site and budget?
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 3, 2021 9:43:41 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts from all.
Taking out the economic aspect and from the point of view of the game that we play, what interested me was the distinction between minimalism (i.e. letting nature speak) and the concept of 'small golf' (still letting nature speak, but without necessarily deciding an ideal line of play to a hole and thereby giving up strategy to the player). I'm not sure how well I can do the latter and I think you certainly walk a tightrope. Many holes that don't consider strategy at all will feel random, disjointed and across the 18 holes will almost certainly repeat ideas or hole design concepts. As Rob mentions, you need an exceptional piece of land and - I'd argue - a lot of luck to create a great course. In terms of St Andrews as the ultimate example of 'small golf', it's worth remembering that golf had been played there for years before the holes were formalised and therefore strategy would have been part of its conception as an 18 hole course. The simple fact that early golfers would put pins behind a dune to make them interesting immediately takes it slightly into big golf territory. Arguably, the question is one of the designer's intent here, and that's always going to be tough to prove.
I also agree with those comments I've seen that this looks to be a refutation of 'big golf', something I'd argue strongly against. I still feel strongly that there needs to be an overall strategy to the hole, but I've always preferred those holes with nuance and the more I've designed, the more I've moved away from the 'for this pin, hit it here, but for this pin, hit it here' approach that characterised some of my early designs. Researching sandbelt courses influenced me more than anything. Give a line of charm but allow the player to take on as much or as little of that danger as they want, with ever-increasing reward - it's not simply A or B, but a whole spectrum of options and vastly improved playability. Is that big golf? Absolutely, but a far better type than I originally had. What I'm attempting to do less of is to sketch out holes and mould the plot to those holes. The middle ground, as I see it, is to create the plot, route the holes and note key features, then take up the sketchpad, as I still think far better with pencil and paper.
What I think I am trying to do more of is minimalism, namely letting the land speak and dictate the hole designs a bit more. Coupling that with strategic understanding probably does lead to big golf still, but whilst conceptually admirable, perhaps pure small golf is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by richnufc99 on Apr 3, 2021 10:28:34 GMT -5
Following this conversation with interest…
I’d read the article and had lots of similar thoughts…
I think there are a number of different aspects that overlap here. Thinking about real courses for a moment… starting with a naturally interesting plot with features that can become part of a golf hole without any alteration, would allow the architect to come in and simply route a course… as they did in the early days… and often the number of holes was variable as a result of this… that’s your minimalist approach… the changes you need to make are few and if you looked at the before and after images you would recognise the old landscape after the course had been laid…
The converse… the architect who arrives at a flat area of dry wasteland and leaves with a mountainous watery wonderland… albeit looking really natural!… every hole designed and options aplenty…
The middle ground is also obviously possible - what if the landscape designer came in and designed and built a landscape with hills and hollows, dunes and plateaus … but without golf in mind… the course architect pitches up and has features to work with and now fits with his minimalist ideal.
A lot of this just depends on the initial state at the point that someone states their intention that this is where Golf could be played!…
If we think then about the 2K21 designer… if you divide your main activities into plot creation and then course design, well then you are effectively following the small golf principles …
I’ve referred mainly to the landscape here… but the other issue at play is how much you let the existing land dictate how the hole plays… or whether that strategy is pre-determined and applied to the plot. I think even in the most minimalist minds, there are still choices to be made about where to place the main parts of a hole, the distance between tee and flag for example …
Anyway, definitely interesting !
|
|
|
Post by PithyDoctorG on Apr 3, 2021 11:33:32 GMT -5
This is such a fun topic. Thanks for keeping the conversation going. You bring up a good point rjwils30 about the unclear distinction between small and big golf. I struggled with that distinction, too. I reread the article and here’s my best shot at it. Big golf 1) reflects the vision and philosophy of an architect. Shots both on and off the line of charm give many options that the architect has considered carefully. And developers of big golf courses 2) are economically ambitious. Budgets are high, which allows architects the tools, landscape and time to realize their vision, to put their design philosophy into practice on the piece of land. It’s foil, small golf 1) does not reflect the vision or philosophy of an architect: “ the architect’s philosophy is neither hidden, as in the game of hide-and-seek, or displayed. Philosophy is secondary to landscape.” Instead of providing “options,” small golf provides “possibilities.” Possibilities are more random and left to nature both before and after construction. (Criss mentions a ball bouncing through a tire track, so I’d imagine “nature” is covering a pretty broad range of non-golf-course-maintenance forces, some of which may be man-made.) 2) Small golf is economically unambitious, so architects don’t have the tools, time or landscape to fully realize a vision. Doak falls into the big golf category because his courses represent his golf vision, and they’re economically ambitious. He may not have moved much land at Pacific Dunes, but he had phenomenal golf land to begin with, and he had the time necessary to realize his vision for that land. Near the end of the essay, Criss points to the Feed the Ball podcast: “ Derek Duncan has spoken about his wish for a new minimalism—a design approach that ties golf to modern life and land rather than conforming it to modernity (maximalism) or imitating an anti-modernity (“minimalism”).” Many Doak projects would seem to fall into this anti-modernity category — Pac Dunes, Tara Iti, Barnbougle, etc. These are phenomenal courses on fantastic pieces of land, but they don’t tie golf into modern life. Instead, they’re about as far removed from modern life as possible and require long journeys and fairly substantial economic means to experience them. I think this gets really interesting when you start thinking about specific examples. Your point about St Andrew’s was a really good one. That has to be small golf. It was built less by one architect than by the natural landscape and many people over a long period of time. What else falls in this category? Does Winter Park? It fits into the landscape of modern life, but (having never played it) it strikes me as the clear vision of talented architects creating options. I like those examples you cite. Having played WP9, I would say there's quite a bit of small golf ethos to it. The most memorable hole incorporates pre-existing train tracks and the course ties in with the neighborhood extremely well. Sure, it has plenty of man-made "fun" features, but it felt far less "imposed" than a course like, say, Tobacco Road. I think other good real life examples of small golf would be the "common ground" courses found in the UK like Cleeve Cloud and Minchinhampton (Old). Bryn Awelon by SkinniePost is probably the best rendering of this style in the video game golf world.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 3, 2021 11:48:21 GMT -5
In terms of how this affects my designing moving forward, I've just sketched out a hole that I think shows the change (albeit a subtle one) in my ethos. I won't have every hole be like this, but I think it's a decent way of doing 'choose your strategy' and having a hole that is strategic, whilst still allowing for some small golf and possibilities. The hole in question is on part of the property where you have an uphill tee shot to a plateau to a fairway that drops down then back up slightly to the green site. The land generally flows left to right, so all of the features are basically there to work off. May tweak when I hit the designer, but this is what I've come up with. In my head, there is no A1 position, but a number of factors at play that may influence a player one way or another - that's how I'm choosing to interpret the small golf idea, without losing strategy completely: --- Down the left gives a flatter stance, better angle, full wedge, but challenges bunkers the further you go. Right leaves a shorter approach, possibly a pitch, from a slight hanging lie and over a bunker cluster. Middle is an option as well where you can ride the slope or play through it, potentially reaching the swale. Kicker and green contours facilitate approaches from different angles as well. My hope is that you have an equally viable tee/approach shot from all of the positions marked, just offering different challenges and still being cohesive. Different players should see different choices and pros/cons.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Apr 3, 2021 12:01:40 GMT -5
Great summary thanks. It seems big vs small golf is more related to economic constraints than anything. I’m still struggling a bit with the design philosophy part however. If you look at winter park for instance, this is a small scale cheap course that is highly thought out by some ambitious architects. I’m sure there is heaps of design intention embedded within the course. It may be limited due to the scale and constraints of the site but it’s there none the less. I’m pretty sure those guys planned every single shot possibility well before building the course. Is it possible to design unintentionally and without philosophy? If you take the economics out, the design philosophy of small golf seems pretty closely related to minimalism, if not the same. If there is a distinction philosophically how could it be applied in this game? Is small golf just minimalism on a constrained site and budget? I would say here that minimalism in big golf is by choice where as minimalism in small golf is by necessity. Doak is probably my favorite modern architect but he certainly falls into the “big golf” category for me simply due to the fact that he designs with a minimalist philosophy by his own choice rather then the necessity of designing on a small budget. I love the way he uses natural features and terrain in his designs but again, he does so after deciding to use them. Small golf design doesn’t have the option of drastically altering landscapes so therefore MUST use any and all of the land elements presented regardless of whether or not the architect wants to. A good example of this is found on the first hole of a small golf track I played as a kid. It’s a shortish par 4 (380 I think) that has a huge (and I mean Huge!) oak tree smack in the middle of the fairway. As a quirky, fun “semi hazard”, I love it but, thinking from a good architecture perspective, the tree honestly shouldn’t be there. However, the course’s budget is small enough so to make the removal of such a large tree financially non-feasible. From the perspective of “good” architecture, it’s a bad hole but I would seriously challenge any player to find the hole forgettable. I feel that a guy like Doak may have kept the tree but requested that the investors purchase more land so he could route around it rather than use it in his final design. Pure speculation of course, but with the large sums of money that the more prestigious design firms are paid to design courses, investors are much more willing to spend a few extra bucks to ensure that they’re getting the best course possible rather then the best course available.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 13:08:50 GMT -5
In terms of how this affects my designing moving forward, I've just sketched out a hole that I think shows the change (albeit a subtle one) in my ethos. I won't have every hole be like this, but I think it's a decent way of doing 'choose your strategy' and having a hole that is strategic, whilst still allowing for some small golf and possibilities. The hole in question is on part of the property where you have an uphill tee shot to a plateau to a fairway that drops down then back up slightly to the green site. The land generally flows left to right, so all of the features are basically there to work off. May tweak when I hit the designer, but this is what I've come up with. In my head, there is no A1 position, but a number of factors at play that may influence a player one way or another - that's how I'm choosing to interpret the small golf idea, without losing strategy completely: --- Down the left gives a flatter stance, better angle, full wedge, but challenges bunkers the further you go. Right leaves a shorter approach, possibly a pitch, from a slight hanging lie and over a bunker cluster. Middle is an option as well where you can ride the slope or play through it, potentially reaching the swale. Kicker and green contours facilitate approaches from different angles as well. My hope is that you have an equally viable tee/approach shot from all of the positions marked, just offering different challenges and still being cohesive. Different players should see different choices and pros/cons. That’s a cool hole concept that accommodates many different approaches to playing it. It is very strategic. The angle and shape of the green, the outline of the fairway the bunker placement as well as the subtle contours are all very intentional and even if they allow for a variety of options they still confine the freedom of the player in some sense. There is a term used in architecture called “Over-programmed”. It’s when too much design is applied to a place. The architect is trying to predetermine too much of what happens in a space rather than letting the use of a place organically evolve. I think designers often take the Evil Mastermind approach and people are just rats running through their maze. Perhaps what is desired here is to reduce the amount of elements on a hole. For instance if you eliminated all definition between fairway rough and green and the hole was reduced to a few 3D features and pins located in the landscape. I sketched this without much thought other than providing a variety of of potential shots to different pins as well adding a few intersting features to negotiate in some cases. other than that there is very little definition to the hole. It would be an intersting exercise to design a course where you are limited to 1 or 2 moves per hole and see what you can achieve.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 3, 2021 13:14:31 GMT -5
In terms of how this affects my designing moving forward, I've just sketched out a hole that I think shows the change (albeit a subtle one) in my ethos. I won't have every hole be like this, but I think it's a decent way of doing 'choose your strategy' and having a hole that is strategic, whilst still allowing for some small golf and possibilities. The hole in question is on part of the property where you have an uphill tee shot to a plateau to a fairway that drops down then back up slightly to the green site. The land generally flows left to right, so all of the features are basically there to work off. May tweak when I hit the designer, but this is what I've come up with. In my head, there is no A1 position, but a number of factors at play that may influence a player one way or another - that's how I'm choosing to interpret the small golf idea, without losing strategy completely: --- Down the left gives a flatter stance, better angle, full wedge, but challenges bunkers the further you go. Right leaves a shorter approach, possibly a pitch, from a slight hanging lie and over a bunker cluster. Middle is an option as well where you can ride the slope or play through it, potentially reaching the swale. Kicker and green contours facilitate approaches from different angles as well. My hope is that you have an equally viable tee/approach shot from all of the positions marked, just offering different challenges and still being cohesive. Different players should see different choices and pros/cons. That’s a cool hole concept that accommodates many different approaches to playing it. It is very strategic. The angle and shape of the green, the outline of the fairway the bunker placement as well as the subtle contours are all very intentional and even if they allow for a variety of options they still confine the freedom of the player in some sense. There is a term used in architecture called “Over-programmed”. It’s when too much design is applied to a place. The architect is trying to predetermine too much of what happens in a space rather than letting the use of a place organically evolve. I think designers often take the Evil Mastermind approach and people are just rats running through their maze. Perhaps what is desired here is to reduce the amount of elements on a hole. For instance if you eliminated all definition between fairway rough and green and the hole was reduced to a few 3D features and pins located in the landscape. I sketched this without much thought other than providing a variety of of potential shots to different pins as well adding a few intersting features to negotiate in some cases. other than that there is very little definition to the hole. It would be an intersting exercise to design a course where you are limited to 1 or 2 moves per hole and see what you can achieve. Love that and I can immediately see different avenues. Right back to flattish linksy terrain in my mind. Totally agree with the comments on my concept, too - it's very much strategic because I doubt I'll ever be able to give that up entirely, but should allow for a variety of different and (depending on player's choice) equal, albeit they are all pre-programmed. Guess my question would be whether you've got subconscious creeping in there, because it certainly is still reliant on an architect allowing for those options, even with the wealth of choice on offer. Interested as to how a full 18 of these sorts of holes would play. I may have to throw together a low-lying links plot now to share and see what people come up with.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 13:21:29 GMT -5
Maurelle was pretty much this concept. You almost did nothing with the terrain and were very restrained with the use of features. I think the trick with this in video game golf is that all players are really good and so the potential and nuance that you provide does not get explored as much as it would in real life.
It would be a really interesting exercise though to try and do this on a flattish plot as Maurelle still relied on big slopes for interest.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 13:27:01 GMT -5
As far as your point about subconscious goes I think there is still a concious choice even with that design but I’m kind of designing the features first and then thinking about how they might be played. I think it’s more about the degree of definition rather than a lack of thought.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 3, 2021 13:27:55 GMT -5
I may have immediately leapt into creating a new plot. Will see where it goes and share if it's any good for a community challenge of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 13:51:29 GMT -5
Great summary thanks. It seems big vs small golf is more related to economic constraints than anything. I’m still struggling a bit with the design philosophy part however. If you look at winter park for instance, this is a small scale cheap course that is highly thought out by some ambitious architects. I’m sure there is heaps of design intention embedded within the course. It may be limited due to the scale and constraints of the site but it’s there none the less. I’m pretty sure those guys planned every single shot possibility well before building the course. Is it possible to design unintentionally and without philosophy? If you take the economics out, the design philosophy of small golf seems pretty closely related to minimalism, if not the same. If there is a distinction philosophically how could it be applied in this game? Is small golf just minimalism on a constrained site and budget? I would say here that minimalism in big golf is by choice where as minimalism in small golf is by necessity. Doak is probably my favorite modern architect but he certainly falls into the “big golf” category for me simply due to the fact that he designs with a minimalist philosophy by his own choice rather then the necessity of designing on a small budget. I love the way he uses natural features and terrain in his designs but again, he does so after deciding to use them. Small golf design doesn’t have the option of drastically altering landscapes so therefore MUST use any and all of the land elements presented regardless of whether or not the architect wants to. A good example of this is found on the first hole of a small golf track I played as a kid. It’s a shortish par 4 (380 I think) that has a huge (and I mean Huge!) oak tree smack in the middle of the fairway. As a quirky, fun “semi hazard”, I love it but, thinking from a good architecture perspective, the tree honestly shouldn’t be there. However, the course’s budget is small enough so to make the removal of such a large tree financially non-feasible. From the perspective of “good” architecture, it’s a bad hole but I would seriously challenge any player to find the hole forgettable. I feel that a guy like Doak may have kept the tree but requested that the investors purchase more land so he could route around it rather than use it in his final design. Pure speculation of course, but with the large sums of money that the more prestigious design firms are paid to design courses, investors are much more willing to spend a few extra bucks to ensure that they’re getting the best course possible rather then the best course available. Yeah I agree constraint is perhaps the key thing here. Whether economic or land size. Small golf must deal with what they have. Although I think constraint applies to all projects it’s just how much. I suspect the distinction between the two in the article is more of a tool to change the culture of golf to accept and appreciate courses that have less to work with. Courses that are designed with low maintenance budgets in mind and played by players of all levels. I recall growing up thinking much less of a course if it was under designed. I wanted to see the flashy mounding and bunkers like you would see in the Myrtle Beach ads in golf magazine. To me, that signified a level of quality and design that was far more interesting than the local muni with domed greens and poorly drained fairways. Unfortunate that attitude is still pervasive and people still expect this type of stuff if they are to rate a course well. I think courses like winter park are making strides to show that a course doesn’t have to be over designed to be interesting and perhaps that more the intent behind the article. Your story about the tree tree in the fairway is a good one but hits on the issue that people are to constrained with what a “bad” golf hole is. That tree might be all that hole has. Without the tree it might just be a boring hole. If the only option was to cut it down I’d take the tree hole any day. And perhaps that’s what the culture needs to accept more.
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on Apr 3, 2021 13:59:55 GMT -5
I may have immediately leapt into creating a new plot. Will see where it goes and share if it's any good for a community challenge of sorts. Definitely would love this!
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 14:06:19 GMT -5
Some courses that also come to mind would be Myopia Hunt Club and Royal Worlington and Newmarket.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Apr 3, 2021 14:27:12 GMT -5
I think the trick with this in video game golf is that all players are really good and so the potential and nuance that you provide does not get explored as much as it would in real life. This point pretty much sums up virtual golf design vs. real life golf design in a nut shell. As designers in game, it’s very difficult to create interest (especially from a strategic perspective) using a purely “small golf” approach. Every lie, regardless of how “bad” it is, is perfect in the regard that the ball reacts in an identical manner when struck every single time after slope, elevation, and wind are taken into account. A purely “small golf” course in game I’m afraid would play extremely easy (and therefore boring) simply due to the inherent skill level of the virtual player. The ability for the virtual player to recover from a poor shot is a much higher than it would be IRL especially when “small golf” type elements (ruts, divots, poorly mown areas, areas with poor drainage, etc.) are considered. The game simply can’t replicate these types of factors in the way you’d experience them IRL. Therefore we, as virtual designers, must adopt at least a little bit of “big golf” philosophy in order to create strategic interest (challenge). It’s not necessarily the worst thing ever, but is a bit limiting when it pertains to the types of courses we can create. Using the examples of Maurelle Point and South Yarra ( as they’re both extremely well designed courses by one of the best designers in the community), I can say without any hesitation that Maurelle is my clear favorite of the two simply due to the fact that I not only know but can also clearly see that the holes were “found” much more than they were “made” which is much more akin to my own design philosophies. South Yarra, while a fabulously designed and technically executed course, is noticeably much more “man-made” feeling to me. Not that I’m taking the liberties to critique Ben’s courses ( he’s a much better designer than me and I really have no grounds on which to criticize ) but, as I was playing both tracks, South Yarra felt like it was forcing me into thinking “how does Ben want me to play this hole” where Maurelle was much more of a “how do I want to play this hole” type of track. Maurelle felt like I was playing against the land and elements themselves where SY felt like I was playing against the designer and how he manipulated the land and elements to influence my decisions. Clearly “small golf” vs. “big golf” in that regard. Plot swaps are something that intrigue me greatly and I’m somewhat jealous of the fact that, as an Xbox designer, I can’t partake. I hope to see more of the better PC designers do this as I feel it will bring more of the “small golf” elements that I love (at least as well as I can experience such things in game) into virtual golf design.
|
|