Streamsong Discussion (and maybe a little more)

[smashdn]

I thought about putting this in Florida but didn't because this is just a good general architecture discussion I wanted to share with those who would be interested here.  You want the opportunity to see how an architect views their work or why things are done certain ways on courses, read this > https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69521.0.html . 

 

And just an aside, why would someone care, etc.  I got into following and learning the architecture side of stuff in an attempt to get better at playing.  I think most all of us can relate to wanting to score better.  My [lack of] natural golfing talent made it pretty evident that I was going to have to work hard and garner any and every advantage I could find to get better.  I first dipped my toe into architecture when I saw the term "template hole" somewhere and looked it up.  You mean to tell me that there are holes on courses all over the world that mimic or attempt to mimic holes that already have been studied to death and there is a "correct" or accepted way to play them?  Exactly the type of "edge" I could use.  Got to reading up on the Redan.  Then the Biarritz, the alps, the punhc bowl etc.  Found out what the challenge is behind a cape hole and a bottle hole, how an architect attempts to visually challenge or use slight of hand with shapes and bunkers.  It all was very fascinating.

 

Now my book shelf is filled with architecture books.  Old stuff from MacKenzie and Ross.  Newer stuff from RTJ and Doak and Richardson.  Books about routings, and design as well as about siting and stuff as deep in the weeds as permitting and grow in.

 

So if you haven't at least gotten yourself a passing familiarity with the architecture side of golf I'd encourage you to.  You may find it really turns your crank like I did.  You may not care except for the fact it may help your score.  Fine too.  But do leave with at least some sense that we are very lucky as golfers that we get to interact with art.  Not very many other mediums do you get to walk upon, be challenged by mentally and physically and play a game upon the art.

[me05501]

34 minutes ago, smashdn said:

I thought about putting this in Florida but didn't because this is just a good general architecture discussion I wanted to share with those who would be interested here.  You want the opportunity to see how an architect views their work or why things are done certain ways on courses, read this > https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69521.0.html . 

 

And just an aside, why would someone care, etc.  I got into following and learning the architecture side of stuff in an attempt to get better at playing.  I think most all of us can relate to wanting to score better.  My [lack of] natural golfing talent made it pretty evident that I was going to have to work hard and garner any and every advantage I could find to get better.  I first dipped my toe into architecture when I saw the term "template hole" somewhere and looked it up.  You mean to tell me that there are holes on courses all over the world that mimic or attempt to mimic holes that already have been studied to death and there is a "correct" or accepted way to play them?  Exactly the type of "edge" I could use.  Got to reading up on the Redan.  Then the Biarritz, the alps, the punhc bowl etc.  Found out what the challenge is behind a cape hole and a bottle hole, how an architect attempts to visually challenge or use slight of hand with shapes and bunkers.  It all was very fascinating.

 

Now my book shelf is filled with architecture books.  Old stuff from MacKenzie and Ross.  Newer stuff from RTJ and Doak and Richardson.  Books about routings, and design as well as about siting and stuff as deep in the weeds as permitting and grow in.

 

So if you haven't at least gotten yourself a passing familiarity with the architecture side of golf I'd encourage you to.  You may find it really turns your crank like I did.  You may not care except for the fact it may help your score.  Fine too.  But do leave with at least some sense that we are very lucky as golfers that we get to interact with art.  Not very many other mediums do you get to walk upon, be challenged by mentally and physically and play a game upon the art.

 

I know you're familiar with the area around Chattanooga. I hope you've played Black Creek. It is chock full of template holes including a true Redan, a Punchbowl, a Biarritz and others.  

[smashdn]

19 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

I know you're familiar with the area around Chattanooga. I hope you've played Black Creek. It is chock full of template holes including a true Redan, a Punchbowl, a Biarritz and others.  

 

Honestly, Sewanee is the only course I have had the opportunity to play down there.  We'll go to Chattanooga for a weekend trip with kids every now and again and I used to go to Atlanta for work here and there but I don't get through there very regular with free time for golf unfortunately. 

[Argonne69]

The big problem of course is that there's a difference between knowing how to play a hole and actually executing. Lol. 

 

I've played a ton of courses. However, most of the top courses I'll likely play once. A very small number I've had a chance to play twice. I can appreciate the design of the holes, but realistically I'm just trying to par the holes by keeping it in the fairway, and targeting the middle of the green. 

 

Would be cool to have a few top ranked courses designed by some of the great architects nearby that I could play regularly. I have one Donald Ross course in my area, and I've gotten to know its quirks. 

 

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

The big problem of course is that there's a difference between knowing how to play a hole and actually executing. Lol. 

 

I've said, and I am sure many before me as well, golf is an easy game to play if you just hit the ball where you want it to go.

[Argonne69]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

I've said, and I am sure many before me as well, golf is an easy game to play if you just hit the ball where you want it to go.

 

I'd settle for avoiding where I don't want it to go. My favorite golf quote is from Seve, "I miss, I miss, I miss, I make." As long as one is generally hitting the ball  in the right direction, and avoiding trouble, par is a possibility. I've had plenty of pars where I've hit a poor tee shot, a poor approach, and/or a poor chip, but one good shot keeps me in the hole.

 

 

[smashdn]

My good shots often follow penalty drops.  Not a recipe for an attractive scorecard.

[sabram]

Golf Club Atlas is a treasure trove for anyone with an interest in golf course architecture. The insights provided by the likes of Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Ian Andrew, Forrest Richardson, Ally Mcintosh, Mike Nuzzo, Richard Mandel, Mark Fine and numerous other golf course architects who post there is why I log on to it regularly. The thread you linked is particularly interesting. How many professionals in any line of work invite criticism of their work and respond in such an even tempered manner?

 

I don't expect that much of what I learn about course design will help my game. I'm just not good enough (like Argonne, I'm happy just to hit fairways and greens), but for those who can shape shots and control their golf ball it can certainly help their games and make it much more interesting when they understand what the architect is asking them to do and to better understand the risks vs rewards of the shot options presented to them.

 

For me, I just like to learn as much as I can about a game I love, and that includes its architecture, history, people and places

Edited June 12, 2021 by sabram

[ND2005]

12 hours ago, sabram said:

Golf Club Atlas is a treasure trove for anyone with an interest in golf course architecture. The insights provided by the likes of Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Ian Andrew, Forrest Richardson, Mike Nuzzo, Richard Mandel, Mark Fine and numerous other golf course architects who post there is why I log on to it regularly. The thread you linked is particularly interesting. How many professionals in any line of work invite criticism of their work and respond in such an even tempered manner?

 

I don't expect that much of what I learn about course design will help my game. I'm just not good enough (like Argonne, I'm happy just to hit fairways and greens), but for those who can shape shots and control their golf ball it can certainly help their games and make it much more interesting when they understand what the architect is asking them to do and to better understand the risks vs rewards of the shot options presented to them.

 

For me, I just like to learn as much as I can about a game I love, and that includes its architecture, history, people and places

 

It is fascinating and rare to see a message board with folks like Doak prominently contributing. 

 

But at the same time...man, even by internet message board standards, there are some arrogant d***s who dominate the conversations...

[sabram]

3 hours ago, ND2005 said:

 

there are some arrogant d***s who dominate the conversations...

There are a few, but they are not typically the architects. The dicks don't typically dominate the conversations, they just pollute them. The archies are among the most even -keeled of the posters there and provide some of the best insights.  I think one reason some of the posters on GCA sound harsh at times is that expertise is generally given more sway on that site than on Golfwrx. On sites like Golfwrx there are significantly fewer experts posting and a significant number here have only played a small sampling of golf courses. I think because of the different participant pools, the culture here is that the opinion of every Tom, Dick and Harry Golfer appears to carry equal weight  and everyone usually goes out of there way to play nice even when some of the opinions aren't supportable in reality. That's not the case on GCA.

[diablocrusher]

On 6/11/2021 at 11:33 AM, smashdn said:

Now my book shelf is filled with architecture books.  Old stuff from MacKenzie and Ross.  Newer stuff from RTJ and Doak and Richardson.  Books about routings, and design as well as about siting and stuff as deep in the weeds as permitting and grow in.

 

Any books you'd recommend?  Golf architecture has always fascinated me but I've never really dug into the theory much.  I always enjoyed seeing before & after pics of the land, I find it interesting how an architect see's a piece of property and pictures a golf hole and then shapes the land to fit that hole.

[smashdn]

Routing the Golf Course - Forrest Richardson

Anatomy of a Golf Course - Doak

Golf Course Architecture - Hurdzan

Sand and Golf - George Waters

Methods of Early Architecture - MacKenzie, Colt, Tillinghast, et al

 

I would throw in Lowest Score Wins too.  I found it helpful to understand a methodology of play dictated by the features on the course.  If you dig into what Doak was learning when working with Koepka at memorial Park you get an idea how an architect attempts to include features that tempt but not dictate play.  Basically, you got to put the trouble out there but not make it so obvious that it is trouble that a smart golfer just plays away from or short of it every time.

Edited June 29, 2021 by smashdn

[sabram]

The books that smashdn suggested are good. Also, Grounds for Gilf by Geoff Shackelford and Methods of Early Golf Architecture, which is a collection of articles by designers from the " Golden Age" of GCA

[hammergolf]

On 6/11/2021 at 2:23 PM, smashdn said:

 

I've said, and I am sure many before me as well, golf is an easy game to play if you just hit the ball where you want it to go.

This is so true. I mean all you have to do is hit the ball the right distance and direction every time....