[SPDB]

Pat - Why don't you answer the question posed? Its on the first page, devoid of any expression of opinions about RTJ or his courses.

Also, how can you make such broad statements about the quantity of courses I've played when you have no idea how many of his courses I've played? This is a very convenient position you take, and not one you would take if you agreed with me. Because I express an opinion on the monotony of RTJ doesn't make it a fact. Seriously, it doesn't really elevate the discussion to be creating these arbitrary qualifications when they suit your opinions.

Tell me why my opinion is wrong, not why it might be.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Good call on the Golden Horseshoe.  It is nithung less than brilliant.  I don't understand why this course doesn't get better press.  It may have one of the better collections of par threes anywhere.  It doesn't beat the player up in distance but makes one plot his way around the course.  I think it has too much water but they arer all judiciously placed.

[Lou_Duran]

PM-

On the hypothetical course sans greatly shaped and built-up tees, either the supt. or the individual groups would set-up the course.  Hopefully, these folks would choose areas that do not collect water.  Conceivably, if there are drainage issues, the teeing area could be as wide as deemed necessary (there is not an USGA prescribed maxium distance on the width of the tees, is there?).

BTW, what would happen today if the teeing area was totally under water?  Wouldn't you find the nearest dry spot around that area, no closer to the hole and tee it up?

[mark chalfant]

I would like to play some of his work in Europe including
Cashen, Sotogrande, Pevoro, and Troia.Troia in Portugal
may be less natural than when Trent Jones built. it but thats not his fault. And I think its still considered one of the better
courses in Iberia if not in Continental Europe.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I'll take your failure to respond, as a NO, that you haven't played Peachtree, Eugene and Old Warson.[/color]

Also, how can you make such broad statements about the quantity of courses I've played when you have no idea how many of his courses I've played?

It's simple, in my gut I know that you haven't played that many of his courses, but rather then banter back and forth, quantify for us the total number of his courses where you've played all 18 holes.  

Then we can see who is fooling whom.
Unless,  you're afraid that quantifying your experience will diminish your credibility.[/color]

This is a very convenient position for you take, and not one you would take if you agreed with me. Because I express an opinion on the monotony of RTJ doesn't make it a fact. Seriously, it doesn't really elevate the discussion to be creating these arbitrary qualifications when they suit your opinions.

It's not only convenient, it's prudent.
I'm not creating arbitrary qualifications, I'm trying the assess the basis of your rather strong and negative opinion.

Of the 450 golf courses he's designed, is your opinion based on the play of only 9 courses, 45 courses, 90 courses or 225 courses ?  Tell us, how many have you played ?  

In order for a sampling to serve as the basis for a legitimate study, the sampling should be representative of a cross section of his entire body of work, not just a minimum number of golf courses. That's fair, isn't it ?

You said that his courses were SO mindless.
So, tell us which courses of his you've played, and what you found mindless about all of them.[/color]

Tell me why my opinion is wrong, not why it might be.

Because you haven't played a large enough number of the 450 courses he's designed to make a qualitative statement that reflects on his entire body of work.

That's called common sense and a sense of fair play[/color]

Joe Hancock,

To answer the question you posed to Matt Ward, it's simple.
Pine Valley IS Crump's entire body of work.
9 courses represent 2 % of RTJ's entire body of work.

Lou Duran,

I want you to think about how your desire to have tees at ground level/grade might compromise the routing and design of a golf course.  Your suggestion would promote the tail wagging the dog, architecturally speaking that is.

[SPDB]

SPDB,

I'll take your failure to respond, as a NO, that you haven't played Peachtree, Eugene and Old Warson.[/color]

That would be yet another mistaken assumption on your part, I've played Old Warson.  


It's simple, in my gut I know that you haven't played that many of his courses, but rather then banter back and forth, quantify for us the total number of his courses where you've played all 18 holes.  

Then we can see who is fooling whom.
Unless,  you're afraid that quantifying your experience will diminish your credibility.[/color]

I don't doubt that if I told you I've played 425 of his courses, you would criticize me for lack of credibility. Nevertheless, I've likely played over 40 of his courses, including some of his best, and I am likely forgetting a bunch.


I'm not creating arbitrary qualifications, I'm trying the assess the basis of your rather strong and negative opinion.

Again, I've offered my opinion, which you are free to accept or reject. But the thread is not the credibility of my opinion, I am seeking YOUR thoughts, which I promise I will not question, credible or not. I've played what I consider a statistically significant number of RTJ courses. Please feel free to reject my opinion, but please don't do so without providing one of your own, in response to my question, which you have yet to answer.

In order for a sampling to serve as the basis for a legitimate study, the sampling should be representative of a cross section of his entire body of work, not just a minimum number of golf courses. That's fair, isn't it ?

I'll assume you get to determine what constitutes a cross-section. I'll further assume that in your eyes, the courses I've played fall short of meeting that criteria.

You said that his courses were SO mindless.
So, tell us which courses of his you've played, and what you found mindless about all of them.

Tell me why my opinion is wrong, not why it might be.

Because you haven't played a large enough number of the 450 courses he's designed to make a qualitative statement that reflects on his entire body of work.

That's called common sense and a sense of fair play[/color]

Again, when you made this comment you had no idea how many courses I've played (besides the lies your gut passed on to you). Stop reasoning from a conclusion and start answering the substance of my question

Common sense and fairplay would dictate you address your thoughts and comments to the substance of what I'm saying. You rarely do that, instead you supply red herrings. Why do you disagree with the substance of my comments?

I cited the example of the repetitive par 3 over a lake. I'd also include his lack of blindness, the absence of internal bunkering and others. What do you find stirring about his designs?

[Joe Hancock]

Joe Hancock,

To answer the question you posed to Matt Ward, it's simple.
Pine Valley IS Crump's entire body of work.
9 courses represent 2 % of RTJ's entire body of work.

Pat,

I was obiously being facetious when I questioned Matt. But, I have to admit that I struggle with all the qualifiers and formulai for credibilty that keeps being tossed about.

Joe

[SPDB]

Pat,

I was obiously being facetious when I questioned Matt. But, I have to admit that I struggle with all the qualifiers and formulai for credibilty that keeps being tossed about.

Joe

Joe - It's a strange variant on the classical Golden Ratio, known as the Fibomucci Sequence.  

[Joe Hancock]

SPDB,

I used to have on my signature line a quote from Dave Schmidt that was something along the lines of not needing to do Fibbonicci Sequences on the tee to figure out what you were supposed to do with the shot. Now I'm wondering if I'm mathematically capable of being a participant on this site!  

Joe

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The judgement of RTJ should include some historical perspective.  Like him or not, his courses are very much a part of America at the time.  The fifties and sixties were a period industrial supremacy and this spilled over into maufactured neighborhoods.  RTJ's courses seem to me as nature being harnessed and improved by modern building techniques.  In an ideal world with choices, RTJ would be way down the list, but he really knew the game.  You don't play RTJ courses well being brain dead, the same cannot be said for a Fazio or Robinson course. The mini-tours in Southern California play a few RTJ's and they generally do a great job of identifying the best players--SCGA Players Club (Murrieta Hot Springs) has held up well to technology.  The aesthetics may look generic on his SoCal courses, but the shot values are usually very good.  

[SPDB]

Robert:

I'm not really interested in rewriting history, RTJ's impact on modern golf architecture is an established fact. But you make an interesting point in your post, to the effect that RTJ's courses "improved nature," which might just be his lasting legacy. I don't doubt that his courses identify good players, but I'm not sure that the converse of that statement - that good players identify great courses - is necessarily true.

Perhaps RTJ's work was a response to the broader architectural movement of the time - one of functionalism and modernism. Tom MacWood would know more about that than I. I think, however, that much of the architecture of the period is generally regarded as regrettable, except for that produced by a small coterie of architects (e.g. Le Corbusier, Phillip Johnson, van de Rohe), whose artistic talents are undeniable, despite how you feel about the aesthetics of their product.  

I guess I wonder if, by analogy to structural architecture, RTJ would occupy a similar position to those architects I mention above, or if he would be lumped in with the rest whose work is largely panned or forgettable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

You said that RTJ's courses were "so mindless"

You've played less then 10 % of them.

Could you identify the courses you have played and tell us, specifically, what was "mindless" about each one of them ?

[Matt_Ward]

Joe H said,

"I was obviously being facetious when I questioned Matt. But, I have to admit that I struggle with all the qualifiers and formulai for credibilty that keeps being tossed about."

Joe, whether your statement to me was being real or simply pulling my leg I have to say this -- there are some people here on GCA who have played such a tiny sampling of an architect's work yet feel free to go off in a big time way about the nature of what the architect has done and is capable of producing in the future. Generally, this applies to such producers of courses like Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus, to name two of the more noted punching bags. They are not alone.

I have no issue with anyone having an opinion on anything, but frankly I don't place much credibility on someone playing a very tiny sampling and then ipso facto pronouncing final conclusions on what a person is able to do.

The simple fact is these same people want to offer an opinion but don't want to do any of the heavy lifting by actually playing the other courses in a architect's portfolio. Architects and their designs can evolve -- both up and down. No one knows for sure unless you take the time and do the field work. It's no different in golf than it would be in any field of study. Unfortunately, it's easy for some to simply apply the tag of thumbs up or thumbs down and then that particular tag holds for whatever comes down the line. That's major league laziness and candidly demonstrates a clear bias to those architects whose designs they always favor no matter what else may come forward from others also in the business.

[Joe Hancock]

Matt,

I agree with the intent of your "credibilty vs. body of work seen" position. I continue to struggle with someone throwing out percentages or otherwise as if they have the authority to determine what those numbers should be. Overall, though, I agree with your position on the issue, including all the other "punching bag" architects.

Joe

[SPDB]

Matt -
You make it sound as if traveling the country playing courses is hard work (or "heavy lifting").  Unfortunately, many don't have the luxury to engage in such "heavy lifting" like you (Do you ever tire of such hard work). Whether they express there opinion of the architect or the courses they've played is, for discussion purposes, irrelevant. But this Mucci/Ward imposed limit (and what is the limit?) is just absurd and it has to stop. I've played over 40 of RTJ's courses, and a reasonable cross-section, but I have Pat telling me my opinion is unqualified. Unqualified for what? I'm not diagnosing somebody for chrissake I just want to discuss.

You're always free to reject their opinion or disagree, but telling them they shouldn't discuss the architect's work on a website dedicated to architectural discussion because they've only played 10%, 50%, 75% of his courses (or some other amount determined by the superior opinion) is just asinine.

If we follow down your and Pat's qualifying criteria, we'd have a website where only Pat and Matt and handful of others would have control of the dialogue, because you've gone through the painstaking and thankless hard work. I think I speak for a great many when I say that is an undesirable object.

Stop muzzling people and use your vast storehouse of experience to offer a (counter)opinion.

And Pat, I will not itemize each mindless quality of each course I've played, see my old posts in this thread for the themes I found. Then address my questions.

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

For all the blown smoke you get from people with OPINIONS I take great pride in actually going to the places in question BEFORE lobbing some diatribe on the merits / lack thereof of the courses in question. In other professions they call that personal research.

Why don't you pipe down on all the BS about being muzzled. That's a major league crock. It's nothing more than trying to turn the situation back on people like me who challenge people to back up their weighty opinions on something a bit more than armchair quarterback analysis or from a scant pile of actual courses played.

When people play 5-7 courses from an architect who has say 75+ courses in their portfolio and then believes they can extrapolate the full meaning of their work from such a limited sample size is utter nonsense. There are people who have weighed in on the design work of Nicklaus and simply based that on reviews from work like Shoal Creek or even further back with Desert Highlands and the like. Hello -- anybody home? Jack has evolved in his design patterns and there are great examples of that in his recent work.

Guess what?

Many of these same blowhards don't recognize that because they have not played such courses doesn't mean that things have evolved since that time. How would I know? Me and others who have played a greater depth of courses have actually been there.

Let's be clear -- why does Tom Doak's book on Confidential Guide matter? Because Tom went to the courses in question. He didn't opine on simply from second or third hand observations. I can learn something from that type of hard efforts and insights.

Yes, I take the time to travel -- it's what I do as a golf media person -- and frankly I am quite tired and a bit annoyed that the very fact I do the legwork is then held against me because others either cannot or will not do likewise. Talk about a bait and switch tactic.

I never said my opinion was the final word. But, I will say this -- compared to the many LOUNGE LIZARDS on this site who pontificate about everything about golf course design -- e.g. see all the bromides about TF and Nicklaus designs -- the very fact is that few people do the homework but STILL want to have their opinions known. How very nice and frankly unconvincing.

This site is based on a multitude of opinions, but I will no less challenge people -- and they likewise me. That's fair game in my book. Plenty of people have opinions -- it's the informed ones that matter more to me and a number of others who share the same sentiment.

SPDB -- let's get this straight -- I never weighed in against you and your thoughts on RTJ. Before you lob your personal grenade make sure you understand the apppropriate target before spraying your angst in all sorts of misguided directions.

[SPDB]

Matt - Perhaps my post was a bit strong, and for that I apologize.  

I sincerely doubt anyone is holding your vast experiences against you. How could they? Perhaps you could cite some examples?

But your reference to Tom Doaks CG is instructive. Tom's book matters because it is an honest and insightful expression of his opinion on golf courses. But lets be honest, the fact that he went there is not why it matters. It wouldn't be published if he never left his living room.

But we're not publishing authors here, we're architecture junkies trading impulsive thoughts on a bulletin board. The standards are a bit different.  I would be dismayed, too, if a poster came on here and told me that XYZ National is a great course without ever having sniffed the place, but I don't think that's the problem I'm addressing.

I can't stand the constant barrage some people get when they try to initiate insightful discussion on an architect, and they are treated with scorn because they haven't played some unknown number of the architects courses. It elevates form to a degree that is disruptive and arbitrary. I would just like to get to a place where the discussion is aimed at substance and not the author.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

If you won't list the courses, could you at least define what you mean by "mindless" ?

Joe Hancock,

I'm not setting any specific percentile of courses that need to be played before comments can be made on the entire body of an architect's courses.  What I am saying is that if someone's body of work encompasses 450 golf courses, before one makes a general comment reflecting on all of them, that person should have played a large number of those courses.

I asked is 1 % a valid percentile ?  2 % ?.  20 % ?  50 % ?
From a common sense perspective, let alone a scientific or prudent sampling, 2 % or 10 % is to low a number by which to make broad general statements when the entire body of work equals 450 golf courses.

If I played Donald Ross's ten (10) worst golf courses, is it fair, and prudent, to make broad, general statements about his entire body of work, based on my limited experience with his ten clunkers ?

I think you get the point, common sense and/or the prudent man rule should govern, not head hunting on those who don't enjoy, "most favored nation" status.

[Jeff Fortson]

Patrick,

Forgive me for my laziness (I don't feel like reading every post on this thread right now), but how many RTJ courses have you played?  I'm just curious.  Since that fact alone seems to determine how measurable one's opinion is on the subject in your opinion.

I have probably played about 60 or 70 RTJ courses, and no I am not going to name them all.  While this is only about 15% of his total work I think I am entitled to a qualified opinion about his designs.  

I think most of his work doesn't inspire me like some other architecs work.  However, with that said, I agree with Robert Deruntz that he did design some good tests of golfing skill.  Like the course he mentioned, SCGA Golf Club (which used to be Rancho California G.C.) is a superb test of ones precision in ball striking and a decent test of one's short game with well bunkered greens and greens designed to house tough pin locations.

Does this mean I think RTJ did a good job of inspiring the mind, heart and soul of the golfer?  In most of my experiences, no.  I felt there was a sterile feeling on most of his courses.

If I had to pick the best design of his that I have played then I am compelled to say Spyglass.  I at least felt inspired by the place.  It has beauty, shot values, and a tiny bit of quirk.  

Some of his designs seem to have more of Rulewich's hands on them then his, like Metedeconk.

Anyway, I think RTJ served a purpose in his day and the desire for tough courses with demanding features for the scratch player seemed to fuel his success.  Everybody wants the toughest course and he usually delivered one.

Let's put it this way, if I were given an opportunity to play only five architects work for the rest of my life he would not make the cut.  However, there is a place for his courses and they usually deliver tournament quality challenges if that is what you are looking for, IMHO.


Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Fortson,

Reading the entire post would have provided you with a better perspective.

I never offered an opinion of his work.

I questioned SPDB's categorization, that his courses were so
"MINDLESS".

I asked how many of RTJ's courses he had played, that formed the basis of his opinion, that allowed him to conclude that they were all mindless, and I asked him to define what he meant by "mindless".  I also asked him to identify the courses he played and the features or lack of features that led him to conclude that his courses were mindless.

Would you say that all of his courses are "mindless" ?

[SPDB]

Pat -
Point out where I explicitly express that ALL[/b] RTJ courses are mindless?

[Jeff Fortson]

Patrick,

No, I would not say that all his courses are "mindless".  I would say they don't inspire, IMHO.

While some of his designs are good at measuring one's skill, I have found little in the shape of natural beauty in his designs (with the exception of a couple outstanding locations -i.e. Spyglass-, IMO).  His designs don't seem to blend with the setting as well as others, IMO.

Since haggling others for facts and data to support their reasons is something you do well and often , I would like to pose this question to you.....

Do you feel you are qualified to judge RTJ as a designer?  If so, how many courses of his have you played?  What do think is his best design?


Jeff F.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Jeff , I totally agree with you on RTJ.  There aren't too many courses that I aspire to play.  However, when it comes to tournaments, I enjoy the challenge. Without RTJ, there are probably a lot of great courses that began as a reaction to his designs that would not exist

[mark chalfant]

Ive played  22 or 23 by RTJ,many of them i enjoyed quite a
bit. Old Warson and Tuxedo are very good. But I think its
unfortunate that many overlook some of RTJs  "smaller courses." Some of these are rather nice for either novices
or short hitters.Woodstock, Lower Cascades, and Spotswood come to mind.

Woodstock has a nice routing in a mountain valley where a
winding stream affects 3 or 4 holes. Lower Cascades is
another valley course that is quite scenic with variety as well as some nice dropping tee shots. Spotswood (Va) is a nine holer comprised of mostly one shotters. Two of these are
testy but charming pitches (100-120y)over a pond or a ravine.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()