Philosophy

That this “field” of play does not have rigid dimensions imposed upon it requires an understanding and appreciation of the history of courses and their design.

The golf architects of the early Scottish links and American courses of the early 20th Century had great respect for both the game and the natural landforms contained within the sites on which they worked. The result was that the majority of courses exhibited individual and unique character, even where talented folks like Macdonald, Raynor, Ross and others employed classic hole “templates” in their designs.

Robert Hunter, a design Associate of Alister Mackenzie, who is best known for his classic design treatise, THE LINKS, wrote of the importance of this variety,

“To achieve interest, each hole should have a character of its own and should be one not easy to forget. Its personality should awaken your interest and cause you to question how best to approach it.”

These early layouts were characterized by ample fairways, entirely strategic as well as random bunkers that nestled comfortably into their surroundings and the spirited use of angles in design. The game was more frequently played “on the ground”, as evidenced in 1895 by THE JOURNAL OF ST ANDREWS:

“Read the terrain, particularly in front of the green. Let the ground by your ally. Be clever, use your imagination.”

Donald Ross took such “direction” – if not course design - one step further:

“The golf holes on the best links have sufficient different ways of playing them and because they do not present just one and only one way to everybody, the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems.”

The advent of the Depression initiated a deterioration of these landmark courses, especially those in America. As an example, The PGA of America enlisted the assistance of design great A.W. Tillinghast with the “Terror’s” efforts resulting in the removal of over 7000 “un-necessary” bunkers nation wide. Many other existing courses took their “lead” from Tillinghast and the PGA and followed in the “simplification” of their courses, often championing the removal of bunkers that “punished those who already had sufficient problems” without considering the impact of these hazards on course strategy, texture and “feel”.

The Post WWII boom in course development furthered the deterioration of vintage design. Golf, like so many design pursuits, sought something “new and improved” and designs more standardized in form and function ruled the day. These standards were applied to, among others, hole lengths, course par, playing surface sizes and placement of bunkers. The emasculation of vintage layouts continued as course features were “dummied-down” to the lowest common denominator – the worst player in a club – robbing layouts of their greatest charm. The race was fully on to make a storied course look just like the new XYZ Country Club (insert name of course designed by “contemporary” Architect) that just opened up across town.

And later, golf literature completely missed the boat with that era of design up until the Depression - a time frame when some of the most strategic layouts of all time came into existence – being referred to as the era of “Penal Design”.

Early architects had cautioned against such standardization with Wethered and Simpson’s THE ARCHITECTURAL SIDE OF GOLF suggesting,

“It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.”

Charles Alison, accomplished architect and co-author with H.S. Colt of Some Essays on Golf Architecture, furthered the discussion on standardization in 1920,

“In planning a course, there are no fixed rules to which it is compulsory to conform, and the variety that results is one of the greatest charms of the game.”

My original designs and much of my existing course renovation work pay homage to the earlier era of course design. There is not a single design style or motif that is “cookie cut” into each course so that the end result is not one that is mundanely repeated from project to project. The goal is a finished product with a look and “feel” that is unique to each site and client’s requirements. Each layout is fashioned to highlight vintage design strategy that makes the game so enticing. The courses stress fun and interest in the play of individual golf holes.

This is accomplished by taking on a select number of projects per year and visiting each active project at least once per week during construction, working closely with the Owner, Contractor and Consultants to create the best possible layout the situation allows.

The necessary man-made golf features are combined with the natural environment into a seamlessly blended whole.

The layouts are in harmony with their surroundings – as exemplified by Red Tail Golf Club – the first Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Signature Course in New England. Red Tail was also named a “Top Ten Course” by GOLF MAGAZINE, proving that environmental sensitivity and great golf need not be mutually exclusive and golf ball intensive.

The history of true “traditional course design” pre-dated by decades the manner of design championed in the 1960’s. Liberal fairway acreage, combined with both strategic and random bunkering, created angles in design that allowed a layout to fulfill the aged chestnut of being both “challenging for the accomplished, manageable for the average – and most importantly – fun for all.

Aesthetic appeal and environmental sensitivity work together to the advantage of both of these key course characteristics. Sound design provides alternative routes for the less accomplished without entirely robbing a course of its character.

Not all of us can hit the ball 290 yards in the air – in one shot! But we can work our way through a thoughtful design in a manner that allows us to play our best game. In fact, it is just this type of strategic design that inspires our best play.

I often think of Robert Hunter’s description of good strategic design,

“A golf hole should present some problem in vivid form, and even though that problem may be solved in two or three ways, it should be quite clear from the beginning that a choice must be made.”

The game is one that is best played thinking one shot ahead. Players are more capable of this “method” than they know – it’s just that they are rarely called upon to play a thoughtful round of golf on a well-designed course.

I recently received a letter following the re-opening of a course that underwent a complete re-design under my direction. To “soften the blow”, the club put out a letter to the members that made suggestions for play on each golf hole. One suggestion included the JOURNAL OF ST ANDREWS suggestion about using the ground. The letter I received wrote,

We put out a letter telling people to be imaginative and to use the ground. A good friend of mine who is not a very good golfer came up to me at the club and said, “How can I be clever and imaginative? I’m just trying to get the ball airborne!”

Well, I saw him several weeks ago and he said, “You are not going to believe this. I am now clever and imaginative. I’ve been trying that stuff you wrote about and every once in a while I pull off something wonderful. I love the way I can use the ground on this course. I’m having more fun than I’ve ever had on a golf course.”

Proper strategic design requires thought. And when players get used to a course that is not run of the mill – and actually requires thought – they greatly surprise themselves when they start to work their way around the golf course….and play better!

If your synapses have not been slammed completely shut by this philosophy material, you might want to read “Back to the Classics”, an article published in Golf Business.

Thanks for visiting-- and thanks to Geoff Shackelford and his book "Lines of Charm" for the quotes of Golden Age architects that both accompany this website and influence my work.~ Brian Silva