Stone Harbor vs Tobacco Road

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

Thank you for posting Muirhead's descriptions of the holes of Stone Harbor---that really is something else.

Mark Fine;

I can certainly understand your reaction to Stone Harbor and your inclination never to go back and play it. You've got a lot of company in that sentiment.

But nevertheless, and despite Tom Doak's rating of the course as a 0 there really is a good deal out there on that course that is fascinating and by that I mean exclusively from the perspective of thinking how to play golf shots and executing them. The look of the course either originally or now is another matter and much less interesting to mince words over here.

A golf hole like #4, although undeniably bizarre looking in many ways is technically one of the most interesting (finest) I've ever seen strictly from the perspective of what it asks of the golfer both in thought and execution. And it's not the only one out there. If that somehow adds up to a 0, then, I'm sorry, but I really do think these raters and rankers are not really looking at, understanding or reporting properly what ALL golf architecture is about.

And, again, when I say this about a hole like #4 or some of the others at Stone Harbor I am completely removing from consideration the "look" of those holes. "Look" is important, very important to me too in golf architecture but it's never the whole story of quality or creative talent of the architect, in my opinion!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
SH obviously fooled Tom Doak and myself but hey it's not the first time (at least for me).  

For those of you suggesting this course should be restored, who in the world is going to want to pay for that let alone play it afterwards.  I say stick with pictures to show how wrong you can go with golf course design.  

Tom M,
Trust me, as much fun as you had at Tobacco Road, you would have suffered that much playing SH.  SH may have been a "work of art" but unfortunately, there was no place to play golf on it.  

[ian]

Tom,

Don't worry, I also don't think they are in the same league, but your comparrison makes for great discussion. I found it fun to say "what if they were and we (the golf world) just didn't get it?"

I have had the good fortune to see some of Picasso's early work and a series of interviews where he talked about his evolution as an artist. Picasso's place in art makes sense to me, but I wonder if all that perspective has helped. The canvas certainly was the right place for his expression

I have read articles about Muirhead, but I'll admit that I don't get what he's trying to do. Or may be as a golfer, I'm resistant to his ideas in the context of the game.

What I'm finding with this wonderful analogy is that he may possibly be the great maverick that Picasso was, but working in the wrong medium to gain any sort of acceptance.


Again back to Tabacco Road:

Stranz's Tobacco Road may be perceived as "out there" , 4 par 3's on the back of Pacific Dunes may be concidered outside the box, for me Bill Kittleman is "out there"; but in the anaolgy's context, they are not. All are quite conventional, drawing on variations of a common theme.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
SH obviously fooled Tom Doak and myself but hey it's not the first time (at least for me)."

Mark:

If you want to stand behind everything Tom Doak says just because he says it then by all means be my guest and do it but I'm not going to do that. TomD has a ton of talent, he's proved that as far as I'm concerned and he's showing more of it bigtime recently but Tom certainly isn't the last word in golf architecture in my opinion and either is his Confidential Guide, as interesting and provocative as it may be. I think TomD has some very interesting and unusual ideas on and about golf architecture and that probably is one of the keys to separating him from the pack. But again, some of the things he says about courses and the reasons why aren't necessarily for everyone.

I can definitely understand your sentiments about many things to do with Stone Harbor, again, particularly the look of it but to dismiss it as a 0 and a course that one can't play golf on is just---well, a pretty ridiculous statement if you're serious about analyzing all aspects of golf architecture.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Don't worry, I also don't think they are in the same league, but your comparrison makes for great discussion. I found it fun to say "what if they were and we (the golf world) just didn't get it?""

Ian:

It is fun to say or ponder if perhaps "We" (the golf world) just didn't "get" Muirhead and a product such as Stone Harbor and in some way he was on some new or higher level no one was much aware of! But I'm not sure where a discussion on that subject would logically lead next. How important is it for a golf course to be considered great or great art? How is that ever really established? The way seems to be a sort of general compilation of which courses are accepted or respected by the largest amount of golfers, I suppose. What if some course was absolutely revered by some and abhorred by others? Where would that put it in some definition of "art" or acceptability or greatness?

It also seems to me that in some sense really interesting golf courses may provide the greatest search of a golfer's own character, self image or maybe even soul for that golfer or any golfer. Clearly that's tricky business when one considers all that golf can do both to and for some people, particularly emotionally and psychologically. It very well may be so of some courses the remark Jack Nickelson made in "A Few Good Men----"You can't handle the truth!"

But we probably shouldn't forget that golf is supposed to be an enjoyable and pleasant pastime. I hadn't thought of it until now but is there or will there ever be a place for a golf course and golf architecture that really can and will try the golfer's character, his self-image and his soul??

I think that may be a very intriquing subject in golf architecture particularly since so many of us seem to feel, even if a bit less than consciously that we very well may be,  or at least we very well may have the capacity to be the Masters of the Universe!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
I by no means agree with everything that Tom Doak thinks.  That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, it just means we both have an opinion.  As I said earlier I was concerned when I first played SH that I missed something.  Years later I read Doak's comments and he evidently missed something as well.  In the case of SH, we happen to agree!
Mark

[Willie_Dow]

Ian

Whether or not Bill Kittleman is "out there" or "in there" I'll make a comment:  Kittleman knows which courses one will remember every hole after he has played a round.

Tobacco Road did this for me, but not Stone Harbor.

[Mike_Sweeney]

From the Stone Harbor web site, the redesigned Jaws hole:

[ForkaB]

Is it just me, but I can't look at the revised
Jaws" without thinking "Rrrriiiibbbitt!!" or even "Hiya kids!!!!Hiya hiya hiya!!!?