Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Duke Maas,

I think the site has made an impact and had a postitive influence on issues the site cares about.

I don't know that golfers being unaware of leading architects past and present has any relevance.  I would imagine, if you queried patients entering a hospital that few would know who the heads of the departments are, who the top surgeons in each subspecialty are, who the hospital administrator is, or who the Surgeon General of the United States is.  They are there to for a specific purpose and aren't interested in collateral issues, just as the golfers are there to
PLAY GOLF, and are not interested in collateral issues.

To say that education has no merit, which is what you are saying, is incorrect.  True, this is a small segment of the people interested in golf and golf architecture, but it is growing.

Green committees, Club Presidents, Project chairs and club members in general have benefited from information received from this site.  

In some cases it has already made a difference.

I don't think the site is intended for the golfing public, only that sector of the golfing public interested in architecture and collateral issues.

I also don't know that anyone is carrying the GCA torch to the public.  I think most of us enjoy learning, the discussions, debate, and friendships acquired on this site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Duke Maas,

I think the site has made an impact and had a postitive influence on issues the site cares about.

I don't know that golfers being unaware of leading architects past and present has any relevance.  I would imagine, if you queried patients entering a hospital that few would know who the heads of the departments are, who the top surgeons in each subspecialty are, who the hospital administrator is, or who the Surgeon General of the United States is.  They are there to for a specific purpose and aren't interested in collateral issues, just as the golfers are there to
PLAY GOLF, and are not interested in collateral issues.

To say that education has no merit, which is what you are saying, is incorrect.  True, this is a small segment of the people interested in golf and golf architecture, but it is growing.

Green committees, Club Presidents, Project chairs and club members in general have benefited from information received from this site.  

In some cases it has already made a difference.

I don't think the site is intended for the golfing public, only that sector of the golfing public interested in architecture and collateral issues.

I also don't know that anyone is carrying the GCA torch to the public.  I think most of us enjoy learning, the discussions, debate, and friendships acquired on this site.

[Duke Maas]

Patrick,
Thats why I said that GCA has a very limited influence in a very limited sphere.

This website and discussion board while a  knowledgable and useful resource is with a few exceptions a collection of dilettantes.

Golf course architecture is a hobby to almost everyone on here so to expect people who make their living at it to do things that may cause them to lose projects and income is not rational.

As golf became a game for the masses, mass production of golf courses became necessary and with it a lot of the artistry went away. Thats a fact that will never change despite the fact that there are a few artists still producing golf courses.  This site does a great job of identifying places where the artistry remains or pokes through but to think that it can change the basic nature of the business is an odd conceit.

 

[Slag_Bandoon]

 "We have a kinder, gentler machine-gun hand." -- Neil Young

 When I play a course that is designed by an experienced and generally admired architect and I, as a layman can see lax and mediocre design, it effects me viscerally.  It breaks my heart to see poop getting rewarded with  payment.  I have no outlet to vent my reaction as nobody I know really cares. I don't know if anyone here at GCA really cares but the effect of typing out a thought (albeit thoughtless) is therapeutic in itself. Off my chest.

 I detest pop art, pop music, pop news, and Pop Tarts because they are lowest common denominator ergonomic frosted syrup-filled, sugar-crusted crap input with no real nutritional (artistic) value.

 This is America in the age of the Internet; where Freedom of Speech is practiced by, not only the news reporter, but the common AnonoMan from Globe, Arizona -- 'Vacation Capital of the World'.  

Bottom line is we cannot worry about what Archie X is thinking if we express ourselves with our true beliefs or we'd be lying to ourselves and a part of the problem. Actually the real bottom line is. . . don't play courses you despise . . . money is a vote of legitimate course design.  

 Tesla Rawks!!!

 

 

[Sleepless in Seattle]

I believe Duke is correct.  In the grand scheme of things I am afraid this site accomplishes very little.

The discussion group is stuck in a serious rut, and was driven there by a handful of individuals who repetatively preach the exact same message every day.  Forgive me, but it has been reduced to nothing more than a back-slapping, circle-j*$%; and a contest to see who can write the day's longest post.

Yes, I do beleive there are "lurkers" who also happen to know a heck of alot and who could add to the discussions.  But why would they post?  I bet they check in for entertainment value only because the people involved here usually aren't grounded in the real world.  What is in it for them to post anyway?  They obviously don't know much if they aren't one of the four (or maybe five if R. Prichard is "in" that day) golden-boys who are worthy of designing a descent golf hole.

It is so foolish to waste this intriguing discussion format by habitually arguing over matters of personal taste.  I feel like I am back at the Fourth Grade lunch table bickering about wether the Giants or the Jets are the "cooler" team.

I now only visit the site once a week.  It used to be daily.  Lately I have only been back to see what that crazy bastard Barney F. is up too.

I have heard alot of questions lately about club's goals concerning renovation projects.  WHAT IS THIS SITE'S GOAL?  IS THE GOAL BEING ACCOMPLISHED?  

I appoligize for the sharp tone of my post, but I wanted to get your attention.  If you rethink your approach I think you could get some great feedback.  Hopefully things will turn around.

-S in S

   

[Mike_Cirba]

Sleepless,

Thoughtful post.  I believe that you can help turn things around here for the better by posting more often, and perhaps under your real name.  

As incredibly dull and similar that our posts must seem to you, yours would likely be more respected if it weren't posted anonymously.

Come out of the closet man!  The water's fine!  

[Still Sleepless...]

Perhaps "grounded in the real world" was a bit harsh.  

The hardcore dg'ers are passionate, and that is terrific.  But they represent such a small fraction of all of the opinions that are out there.  If I read a thread where TEPaul and Mike Cirba go back and forth and agree with each other all day long I will come away with absolutely nothing.  Variety is the spice of life.

In my movie if Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan go through all of that trouble and never get together, what was the point?  The same is happening here.

[ForkaB]

Sis

...can I call you that?

This site needs a "Mission Statement" as much as your 4th grade lunch table did.  Refreshing dilletantes like BarnyF come in and out of this forum periodically.  We welcome them, hope they will shed their anonymity and give us some substance, and don't cry too much if they do not and gradually disappear.

More than 1/2 of the stuff written on this DG is crap......but that is a helluva lot better than any DG I have ever seen.......and.....if we could somehow find a way to harness the growing community that exists here (it's happening) we might just make a little bit of difference in making golf a sport that deserves the attention of intelligent and/or passionate individuals.

That's a lot to ask........

[ForkaB]

....PS.....I include a LOT of my stuff in that 50+% crap estimate....just in case some of you might think that I am anything but humble......

[Mike_Cirba]

Sleepless,

You think that there is TOO MUCH AGREEMENT and general back-slapping in here???

Calling Patrick Mucci...Calling Patrick Mucci...

Patrick...Rees Jones can't design himself an original course out of a paper bag.    That's my opinion and I could be wrong.  What do you think?

You know I'm kidding, of course.  Well...perhaps then we can discuss the vastly different looks of Atlanta Athletic Club and East Lake.  

Sleepless...man...if you don't agree with something in here then you're more than welcome to tell us we're full of crap.  Please jump in anytime and liven things up!

[Clone]

I hope by posting here I'm not becoming one of you.
This site is a source of great entertainment for me.
Isn't that enough?
Tommy N.,
You are awesome
Edison sucks.
War- courses without trees, the ground game, blind shots, and of course the Pizza Guy.
Out

[GeoffreyC]

S in S you ask "WHAT IS THIS SITE'S GOAL? IS THE GOAL BEING ACCOMPLISHED?"

Ran and John statement on the home page

"The purpose in presenting GolfClubAtlas.com is to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses. To that end, we
profile over 120 courses that highlight the finest virtues of golf architecture. We encourage you to post your own comments regarding each course at the end of its profile.
conduct a monthly Feature Interview with a well known golf figure. Past interviews are archived for your perusal as well.
moderate a free access Discussion Group. We hope you will participate and share your opinions.
provide an 'In My Opinion' column for you to post detailed thoughts as they relate to the subject of golf architecture.
a section entitled 'My Home Course,' where you may profile your home course and explain why it is enjoyable to play on a day to day basis.
have recently added a section entitled 'Art & Architecture,' in which we explore how many of the great courses looked at their inception through the paintings of Mike Miller. We have an ongoing Question and Answer session with Miller and paintings are added on a continual basis to this section."

So - are the course profiles, in my opinion commentaries and my home course writeups educational? What about interviews with some of the best minds in the business?

People contributing here are passionate and opinionated and I for one learn more than I could have hoped for, met great individuals some of whom are now good friends and had a great time doing it.

[RJ_Daley]

I could be wrong, but I can't help but think that a high percentage of the anonymous-psuedonym posters are ASGCA members or their European counterparts.  Maybe some are known golf writers who need to get out their inner voice that can't pass the editor's pen.  As I have said somewhere in here, I can understand why they post anonymously, but wish they would have the source of their reservations to do so removed.  I suspect that if I am correct on this assumption, that the source is their professional society code of ethics or screwing up business and professional relationships.  And there is the dilemma.  As we have heard on another thread, there are some real hard feelings and inequities or arbitrary procedures in the membership process of ASGCA(at least as it appears to me from that discussion), and those that value and strive to get into the society, sure won't want to get ostricized for violating or appearing to challenge the groups protective veil by speaking their minds with their name attached.  And just so you don't think I am being high and mighty, I know all about that code of silence stuff having had a career as a cop.

So, I will settle for "sleepless" posts because the guy has a point of view, and there is experience and an appearence of standing for a valid and differing point of view behind his comments.  I may not agree with him, and if he looks closely at the home page here on the old GolfClubAtlas, he would find a pretty good attempt at setting forth a mission statement.  And I think that the mission is being accomplished.

Long posts by some of our regulars (who me?) are what they are... sometimes very informative, and sometimes it takes a bit of a story to get the point across, and sometimes just a long winded series of backslapping prattle by friends that like to gather here to yammer.  But, it sure beats sitting in a smoky bar all the time working on a bulbous veiny nose case.  

I think that the archies that lurk and sometimes get pissed off and post annom., or don't post at all, can't wait to confront their repressed feelings about their jobs, and like the rest of us, sometimes are just arguing with themselves trying to make sense of it all for their own personal and professional growth.  That would be a good position in the architecture spectrum.

[George Pazin]

Mr. Seattle -

I don't even know where to start with you, so I'm gonna keep it simple: this site is what you or anyone else makes of it. If you choose to read the more esoteric threads like this one, then I see how you could become bored.

However, if you don't learn anything from the many threads discussing specific courses, course histories like the MacWood/Paul debate on PV, specific holes, etc., well, then, you're missing out on a lot. Look through the archives & you will find more unbelievable information than you can imagine.

Throw in the continuing contributions from gutsy architects, writers, critics & developers, and you have a most enjoyable site. If it's not your cup of tea, fine, but don't give me that bullshit about all threads sounding the same & everyone's opinion is the same.

Interesting how many people choose to criticise others under the cloak of anonymity...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rj,

I don't agree with your thoughts on architects posting anon. or repressing feelings.  I HAVE talked to the architects who post, or who lurk, so I don't need to speculate.  I doubt any post anon., but I can vouch you have P.O.'d some.  

The single biggest reason that most don't post is lack of time, the second is reluctance to critize other architects work - especially w/o  knowing the conditions he/she worked under (which I am too while posting)and lastly, is their opinion of this site, which is generally, sad to say, that it is irrelevent. Contrary to Neal M's assessment, I have heard it referred to as 100 internet guys...well, actually only 50, but I hate to hurt feelings....

While we understand (hate to put words in the mouths of my fellow architects) the allure of golden age design, and many strive to put elements in their work, some would say that the near constant preaching about doing things in a prescribed style endorsed here is the nearest thing design has to A FORMULA! Some of the biggest mistakes have been made (mostly by government agencies, but also by investors) by those who believe everything that can be invented in a certain field has been, and cannot be improved. Secondly, there were reasons why features change and evolve - they didn't work too well!  

Now, a new generation of critics forget some of those reasons, because they weren't there (yes, I wasn't either, but have the knowledge passed down throuh apprenticeships) In design, a good non golf example is the ressurection of "Traffic Circles".  They have been a problem since L'Enfant laid them out in D.C., but a new generation of landscape architects think they look neat, and don't know the legacy of accidents as well as they should.

So, this group might influence architects like myself to include some classic features - most likely on a limited basis - because we have other influences, too, from the real world, inlcuding clients and golfers who come first.  I have to say my most popular courses are really the ones most devoid of the strategy you typically favor in discussions here.  So, I put in a limited dose, but not too much.  And, whenever I push too hard on classic features in inter views, I lose the job to someone pushing new and modern! So thanks a lot guys!  

I learn lots from the course profiles, and it is another avenue to see great courses I may not have a chance to see otherwise.  Way to go Ran! The discussion group? Oh, I think its fun, and I hope I can answer some techical questions, or inject humor from time to time, but basically, I am trying to improve on my 70 mistake a minute typing speed through practice, practice, practice!

Tommy -

I watched a tv show on Tesla in some hotel room somewhere.  Good stuff. And, one of the few posts that someone can actually verify the facts of its author!

I say Fazio is a great craftsman.  In fact, he does not miss the details of design that make a course beautiful or functional at all, which, I can't say for myself, or lots of other guys.  Like to rationalize that its easier with $37M budgets, but he is a good craftsman.  It is simply his style many here don't like.

Jeff

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
I do agree with your posting of Mr. Fazio's talent and how he is an excellent craftsman. Its just that much like the fine artisans that used to carve out marble columns, that is now gone because of cost effectivness.

What was once an art is now made out of polystyrene, and it can be simply attached to any building with some sort of adhesive.

How is this to stand the test of time? How is any type of architecture allowed to bread creativity, when all an architect cares for is pleasing the bottom line?

While this may not be very good business sense, and many might consider it horse sense, few realize how hard it is to swallow to build something half-ass. I don't care to, and unfortunately the developers and contractors want the best of both worlds.

They just don't want to have to pay for it.

This is also where I more then likely get my gumption to criticize. (At least I'm being honest.)

The fact is that Uno Maas or what ever his or her name is forgets one thing. Most who are critical here do get some sort of response to their harsh criticism from someone and while it may not have taken Golf by storm and led the game to the promise land, it doesn't matter for a person like me because I care about one thing....quality of design and the passion it took to build it.

While it may have been a battle from the start to finish, to build anything as such, ultimately that effort does shine through. That is the beauty of creativity.

Frankly, I'm tired of the excuses from any architect that feels that he was presented with many problems on any paticular job. No more F'n excuses!!!!! If that hill is not suited for golf, then don't build on it! If you have a cart path venturing into the line of oncoming play then reroute it or do away with it all together!

(This happenes to be what one of my superiors happened to mention to me today when I stammered on something I forgot to do for him. Not only did I eventually get it done after I dropped everything for him, I got an "Attaboy!"  That means something! )

Why do we constantly have to make things so confusing to play this great game??

First it was drainage and irrigation and then it was green grass, and then it was golf carts and then it was cart paths and then it was GPS systems, and then it was mandatory fore caddies even if you are in a cart on a course that is built on the side of a hill, Why does there have to be extra room for the water cooler on the tee, why does there have to be 8 million dollars of outer landscaping to make this course viable to a given market, Why is there a need to place golf courses in a market place of rankings and let their greatness evolve on their own, etc.

Why do golf courses have to be politically correct?

Jeff, We don't make classic courses a formula here on GCA, we only celebrate their ideals. Wen an architect comes along and tries to create something of the best of his ability that serves its purpose for the people who play on it week end and week out, then it is reason to celebrate. Not because he is the best in the country and has the reciepts to prove it, but because he has created something that grasps the attention of the harshest critics.

I think it is safe to say that we all know who those critics to be, and they are some of the most intelligent people I know, and have the backbone to post under their real names to prove it.

For my crtics, I get a kick out of the fact that they think I "HAVE" to rag on a golf course like Merion. I don't in fact, I think it is tragic that I feel the way I do. One of the most historic golf courses in America has given up its storied history all in the name of allowing the biggest and most succesful name in golf architecture leave his mark.

When Tom Fazio makes changes to a Pine Valley, Merion, or Riviera, it is out and out vandelism. There is little regard for the classics, only a book that announces their ineffectivenees to the game and its history.

I look at GCA and see one very special thing. Isn't it great that we as enthusiasts, have a place where we can go and learn about golf architecture the we ever dreamed about.  So far I have only met people that are not only teaching me, but they are teaching others as well as learning. They know they can never be too smart and they are doing something about it by showing their passion for golf architecture.

So for me, it makes little sense if the rest of the golf world doesn't give a damn, the fact is I know that I understand it better then them and have the scars to prove it. (Knowledge)

[Neal_Meagher]

Ok, so this thread is now getting a bit tattered, but I'll jump back in anyway.

First of all to Sleepless in Seattle, if that is your REAL name, you say that the people that hang around on this site aren't grounded in the real world.  Well, please allow me to disagree.  As near as I can figure, just on six of the courses that I have either principally designed or helped out on just since 1995, there have been something like 765,000 rounds of golf played on them.  Jeff Brauer who, when he can, intelligently posts on here can probably quote much higher.  Now, if one wants to quote Ran and John's mission statement as being a frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses, then it follows that a frank discussion must follow of what today's practitioners are doing.  For better or worse.  Wouldn't it be grand if some of the overall principles espoused here can be included on some of the holes of some of the courses that those many thousands of people play?

And to RJ Daley, yes, there are probably many out there who for some unknown reason are in the design side of this industry yet choose not to identify themselves, as I said earlier, that is their decision and I think they are doing themselves a disservice.  And there is no protective veil that comes with being in the ASGCA, just a good dose of common sense and decency that we all should adhere to.  Yet I do agree with you that this is the best place to come to cut through all the other PR-type crap to get to the real guts of what drives good, bad and great architecture.  Everyone in every field needs a good butt-kicking sometimes to keep them honest.  This site does a pretty good job of that.

And to Jeff I would add that I understand fully what you say about having to appeal to, don't take this the wrong way, the lowest common denominator route to obtain and pursue future work.  But, all I can say for myself is that the basic principles that most here espouse are simply trying to get golf back to what it was always meant to be.  In the U.S. we have created something that is quite different from what has always been played out in Nairn, Prestwick, Brora, Gullane, etc.........

Maybe I'm just not old and jaded enough yet, but can't we see and use this forum as a common call to battle to help reverse the tide?  Why must we simply lay down our arms in the ever-advancing front of EZ-Go and Club Car?  Yes, this site is primarily for the intelligent discourse of what makes specific components of golf courses what they are.  But why can't it expand to envelope the ideals of this greater movement?

Tom Paul, did you quite know what you were getting into when you began this thread?

Now, I'm not one of the

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sleepless,

My cardiologist told me that I have to eliminate stress from my life.

I told him, "doc, we have a problem, I love stress, I thrive on it."

I'd like to think that most of what I post is "grounded in the real world", and that I take an independent point of view.  I like to create and participate in debate, and I have learned a great deal from the site.

You sound a little bitter, and it would appear that this site may be the lightning rod of your discontent.

Irrespective of whether you post or don't post, many of us are going to continue to enjoy this site, and the friendships we've made, thanks to this site.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, I was beginning to wonder if you were really getting bored with the on-going discussion here at GCA, and dropped out of sight to do the bidness thang.  But, sure enough the magic letters, A.S.G.C.A. brought you out of the office, down off the D-4, back to your PC to practice, practice, practice.  Mavis Beacon would be proud of your progress.  

I'd give a lot to be a mouse in the corner of some regional archie get-to-gether conference room when the issue of GCA comes up.  You say that the groups's response is that participants comments here are perceived as irrelevant, and they are thought of as just 50 internet guys that reinforce the same common ideals about GCA and aren't having any real impact on the real world business you guys must conduct.  That reminds me of how most competitive teams or groups "woof" themselves up by telling each other that the other team don't mean squat, or are nothing to give any concern about.  Yet, they get p.o.'d about things said by those irrelevant other guys.  I  can't prove anything I say as it is just speculation, but I think the "team" ASGCA guys have a little bit of a burr under their saddle about non-team guys that appear to be the darlings of this irrelavant groups on-going discussion, and how their more independent nature and approach to the design thang seems to draw high praise from the irrelavants, while the team's work done within the tradition and culture of their organization seems to often get identified and categorized as too formulaic.  

Really, I think you guys know that this little internet gang is not monolithic in their ideas, and that on average they know a boat load more about your business than 95% of your clients or end-users.  Most of them have a wall or two full of books on subjects of design and the games history, etc.  Most of them spend a rediculous amount of time travelling to every new and old golf course they can to "study" and "evaluate" the design/construction of the courses, not just play them.  Some of our very best contributors are writers. They have taken those that practice the business - opportunistic end of the design field to the woodshed, (like Shackelford) and that probably ticks off the team guys who want the party of golf course design excess to never stop cause it translates to big moolah...  But, you can't say that fellows like Geoff or Jeff Mingay are full of crap and don't know the real world aspect of the design construction thing, because they themselves are backing up their ideas and critiques by doing it in the dirt same as the "team" guys that would have folks think that only their guild's procedures and knowledge are the right way.  

As for me, I usually try to convey that I am just one of those diletantes who has found a place at GCA to shoot my mouth off about stuff I have learned superficially.  But, in my own defense, I have taken a lot of time to learn many aspects of golf design and construction and turf subjects to the extent that I really won't get lost on anything the team ASGCA guys want to talk about.  And I know that I don't know that much, but I know where and how to get answers when I get stuck.  Besides books and personal aquaintences in the various fields, I often I come here to GCA where I know that guys like you (who I respect greatly) will have informed ideas.  That is where GCA is in the architecture spectrum as I see it.

[TEPaul]

Fantastic responses! Really good ones and very heartfelt on GCA's contribution to architecture, or lack of it. Particularly Neal Meagher, Jeff Brauer, Tom Huckaby, RJDaley, GeoffC, Slag, Duke Maas, mothman  etc, etc. And even BarnyF, although I never know what he's talking about, although it sounds cool. Even Sleepless! I've never really minded anonymous posting either. It would be nice if he used his own name but I'd rather he posted his opinions anonymously than not at all. Who knows, maybe he cried so much as a newborn before getting named that Sleepless in Seattle is his real name and a derivative of the condition of himself and his parents back then.

Personally, I like what Tom Huckaby (and some of the others) said that what we try to advocate on here may never be part of the mainstream of golf architecture! Maybe it never should be. Maybe the best to hope for is that this kind of architecture just have a larger segment than it now does or that what it's really all about might be better understood among a particular group of golfers (and obviously a larger group than presently). And to me personally, that the classic courses that have been around for many years are better understood and cared for! That's my particular interest in this entire subject!

But we always hear from the professional architects who contribute on here that many of us who aren't in the business just don't understand the real world realities of the way things are today when one has to deal with the needs and wants of various clients. Some probably have a right to call some of us dilletantes if we act as if that shouldn't matter at all! Of course it matters! But I still wonder why then, the architects that we seem to praise on here appear to ply a different market than the ones who say we don't understand why they HAVE to produce some of the things that many on here think are mediocre. Why don't they simply try to compete in the market that Hanse and Doak and Coore and Crenshaw do?

Fazio and some of the others don't seem to really care about that style and seem to ply their trade where they are totally willing to give a client anything he wants no matter how flashy and glitzy and ridiculous vis-a-vis what some of us think is really good arcthitecture. So be it! On that I really do agree with Tom Huckaby that that market is just always going to be there, so what? And in this vein, I suppose I really do disagree with my good friend TommyN that the type of architecture that we really like is just never going to sweep the world entirely.

Jeff Brauer has been very articulate on this subject for a very long time and I guess it would be interesting to ask Jeff this; If for some reason ALL the clients you have and will have really don't care what kind of architecture you produce for them, then what kind of architecture would you produce?? And I would ask the same question of any of the professionals who read or write on here. I guess this line of thinking boils down to the age old political question; "Do you lead or do you follow?" To my knowledge that question has never been successfully answered. And I'm certainly not about to advocate that golf architects don't eat to find out--just maybe that they try a little harder to push the envelope with the kind of architecture we're into if that is what they think is the best architecure.

But anyway, I think that the ultimate spice of golf archtitecture is that today it has so many differences and probably always has, certainly even in the "Golden Age". That there is the glitzy along with the classic and strategic and many other things in between! Maybe the best of all is that no style or type dominates and the world of golf is populated by a little bit of everything.

Does this kind of logic of mine appear to be a call for bad and mediocre architecture mixed in with more really good architecture? I don't know, but it might. I guess the answer lies in trying to determine who likes what and just leaving it at that!

I'll end with a little account of something about golf architecture that I can't get out of my head. Out at Bandon last March I ran into Bill Coore on the putting green who most know on this site I really do have great respect for. I'd just arrived and he'd been there for a day and had just played Pacific Dunes. Both of us have a pretty good idea how each of us think about architecture, I believe. So I asked him what he thought about Pacific Dunes. And he said he thought it was really, really good. Really good! So I asked him why he thought that and he said because it's so different! So I said what if it was really good but not different. He said, "Not sure about that but I like the fact that it is very different!"

[D Moriarty]

Joe Public Golfer hears about a $50 course called Goose Creek.  So he searches the internet to see if he can find anything about it.  He stumbles across Tommy Naccarato's mention on CGA, he plays the course, kind of likes it and wants to read more of what Tommy has to say.  Suddenly he is immersed in the world of CGA, really likes it, and never really looks at a golf course the same way again.  

"How many scores a Flea will jump of his own length from Head to Rump."
--Aristophanes, in the Clouds, deriding Socrates for the pointlessness of his  philosophical pursuits.

"Being derided as a thinker is surely a better fate than being called a thoughtless person."
 --Socrates (in Xenophon's Symposium), rebutting Aristophanes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

A GCA first!  Tommy is absolutely the first person ever to use the words Fazio and Cost Effective in the same paragraph.  

A thread worthy of separate discussion is how technology affects design.  Isn't the new prefab marble panels just a use of modern technology to allow building architects a chance to return to the principals of (one of) their golden ages?  What's wrong with that?  Pining for the good old days isn't going to bring back the lost art and artesians of marble carving.  The absolute worst period in building architecture, IMHO, was the 60's, when designers seemed to give up on doing anything artistic, due to lack of materials, not now, when new materials are offering a wider variety of design options than ever before, even if not exactly the same as in earlier days.  

Following up what Neal said, I hope to reintroduce classic features from all ages of design.  But instead of going full circle to the same place, I aspire to an upward helix, where when the circle comes around to the same place, I am at the next higher level.....I think I am doing the basic types of design I want.  To me, its refining the details of what I know to work, rather than radically altering my philosophy...Perhaps I will figure it all out - like Carl from caddyshack - getting inner peace, cosmic consciousness and the true secret to golf design on my death bed - so at least I got that going for me!

RJ,

I doubt that archies congregate and discuss GCA at all.  In Columbus, the few who do look in sought me out.  Think of ASGCA this way - it was formed before GCA. Those feeble guys didn't realize that had they just waited 50 years for the internet, they wouldn't have had to organize meetings to get together and discuss architecture amongst other knowledgeable people!

Many architects, when discussing feel like I do about the "Golden Age", - some great ideas, but new technology, laws, and preferences beyond our control, along with our own desires to try to stand out (and believe me, its hard)  make us seek out new designs.  No one can really remember why certain ideas went out of style, but they probably did for a very good reason.

Architects opinions are influenced by many things, including experience - Lets see..... I can do what I know works from 20 years of experience, or I can try something new, because 50 internet guys think it might work!  How would you like it if your airline pilot used the same philosphy on your next flight?  Of course, I know the fallacy of that argument is that C and C and a few others have made Golden Age Style work in the right places.

As to the business side, of course I want to keep designing new courses.  Given the "Sophie's Choice" dilemma, I would design rather than play the rest of my life.  Yes, as a business man, I watch pennies, sell and market, and even take some jobs that I know can't be great just to fill in gaps in the schedule and pay bills, but my prime motivation is the joy of design, as it is for almost everyone in the business. NO architect has had every project be a dream project, as Tommy N seems to demand...

Other archie complaints? Your perceptions about the business side are so black and white.  For instance, things do happen after the project starts, that impede you after you are contractually obligated to finish a course. We don't always see the obstacles as well as  they appear in our rearview mirror.

Lastly, many of us shake our heads at some of this groups blind devotion to golden age architects.  Brad Klein's new book gives a balanced view of Ross, but lets face facts - the chart at the back of the book celebrates if Ross managed to visit a site once!  And you criticize many of us, who make 20 -50 site visits for now spending enough time on site!

Ran and John could end this site, like a final show for a sitcom, by saying, "We've has fun, but have wasted a lot of time talking this all over.  It turns out that we just like a certain style."  Discussion over!  

Jeff

PS - So, if you aren't here for the pure fun of it - whether anyone agrees with you or not, you have wasted your time, IMHO.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I understand what you are saying, but one question keeps coming to mind...

If those classic architectural ideas somehow went out of vogue for good reasons, then why are the ranking of every major publication just chock full of courses built before 1940?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
First off, before I accidentally insult you in this post, I appreciate your particpation in this discussion group. I only wish more architects could be just as candid and informative here. I really tink they are missing out on something that could really improve the art.

I think if I came to a brand new mini mall that had used marble columns and carvings to hilight the architecture, I would more then approve and more then notice the difference. However, usually the pre-made styrofoam stuff is really tacky and noticeable, and I think its efforts to hilight classic building architecture is futile if not horrible. It is gimmick. (Just like the cure to end all cures, Bunker Wol ®)

I have said this before to others, so pardon me if I repeat myself.

Next time you are Los Angeles, please make a visit to one of our great Frank Lloyd Wright-designed houses and rub your fingers over the brick patterns that FLW fashioned, custom for each design. Then tell me that someone doing the same thing in polystyerene would be anywhere close to impressive? Trust me, it wouldn't be close.

How many golf architects utilize old age features to hilight there work? The ones that do, don't necessarily use features, they use principles, and usually they are pretty sound and strong ones in tune with what nature has left them. Earth isn't necessarily moved to create them.

In example:

Your building a golf course in a canyon wash. You discover features in the existing terrain that are perfect golf. In some places you might want to use a green shape that is a boomerang shape or a redan-style par 3. This is not gimmick, it is principle because it seems to fit properly with the hole that is pre-existing in the terrain. (Think of Riviera #4)

Now, take for instance, Ted Robinson, who has a trademark pot bunker that is this side of hilarious and he uses it maybe 8-28 times during a golf round. This flat featureless pot bunker is a wonder because it is a very easy bunker to maintain and he doesn't care where the contractor places it because it will "look" fine once it is built. These bunkers are a wonder to Ted because building them allows the client to market the course as a "Links-style." It is gimmick.

Same for the waterfalls and water hazards.

I think you could even admit that the thought of Ted Robinson designing a true "Links" is hilarious if not scary. You just dont let a guy like that build on real sand dunes. But........ I think it would be safe to say, that with Bill Coore, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse and others, it would be OK, because they might be able to really create something special. They know how to carve the marble so to speak. Ted knows how to apply the adhesive (Then again, maybe he doesn't??)

I have learned as of late that designing and building a golf course is a refinement, and aI challenge all architects to particpate more in the construction of their designs to "refine" them further. The further the refinement, the more purity to the result.

While this may ot be financially feasible to many GCA's, I think that if they ever really want to design something, they have to build it themselves.

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
I'm not in a position to determine of this site is irrelevent or not, but if it is, couldn't it be argued that Golf Digest and Golf and GolfWeek are largely irrelevent also. Sure they produce a 100 greatest every couple years, but what effect does that have on the majority of designers. Have you ever had a course rated? And as far as profiling and analyzing great courses, neither holds a candle to this site. Sure 50 or 100 guys on the internet, but who really cares about a number, shouldn't quality not quanity be the issue? How large a staff of writers do these magazines have and are they comparable to the insite and experience of what you'll find here on semi-regular basis -- Klein, Doak, Shackelford, Paul Daley, Daniel Wexler, Rick Wolffe, Ron Whitten, yourself and a number of amateur writers, some with decent knowledge. There aren't that many qualified and nationally known 'expert' analysts in the world of golf architecture and you'll find many of them here.

You say we promote the allure of golden age design and you say we constant preach about doing things in a prescribed style endorsed by GCA. And that is the nearest thing design has to A FORMULA. Many of us do promote the works of the so called Golden Age, but not because of a particular style or formula. The only style that can be drawn from the Golden Age is that there was no style. The common thread was an appreciation for what is natural and the strategies of the ancient models, after that you are left with a group of distinctive individualists whose style's differ greatly. That's is the eras appeal.

As far producing a new generation of critics, I say good. Where have the critics been since the 20's and how well has the art progressed over the last 70 years without criticism? If you use the course rankings of Golf and Golf Digest as your barometer, not very far.